Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

Full Version: We are getting old.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1945 was a war year, partially.  1946 was entirely a postwar year.  Therefore, the change from 1945, which ended after the end of the war, to 1946, which both began and ended after the war, is absolutely part of the postwar change.  Your excluding it is the worst of cherry picking.  If we did the analysis month by month, the postwar period would likely look even worse due to including the immediate postwar months at the end of 1945; even my numbers are cherry picking in your favor a bit.

And again, look back at David Horn's post which started this discussion.  He said, "witness the dramatic change between 1945 and 1973" in his argument for demand side Keynesianism (emphasis mine).  That's why I used 1945-1973 even though, as you point out, 1973 was cherry picked in his favor a bit; my argument about the "early 1970s" being bad should include 1974 and 1975, both of which saw negative economic growth and would show the postwar years as being even worse, with growth at 1.6%  rather than 1.8%.

As for the source of the data, I was using your site.  However, while most of my numbers, including the key 1980-2000 number, are correct, I used the wrong denominator for 1980-2010.  I will go back and correct that post.

So, let's do direct comparisons relative to the business cycle.  For the postwar years from just before a recession to just before a recession, we'll use David Horn's 1945-1973 period.  For an apples to apples comparison of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years, we use my preferred period of 1980-2000, which is again just before a recession to just before a recession.  (You could start it in 1980 if you wanted to exclude Carter's last year of growth, but the number is still the same.)

1945-1973 - 1.8% annual per capita GDP growth, prerecession to prerecession
1980-2000 - 2.3% annual per capita GDP growth, prerecession to prerecession

Supply stimulus is clearly better than demand side stimulus.

Or if you want to end the supply side period in 2010, just after a recession - three decades with one more contraction than expansion - the supply side record drops to 1.8%.  But if you extend the postwar period to three decades by ending it in 1975, so that it also includes an extra cocntraction, it drops to 1.6%.  So again, supply side stimulus works better.

Or, you can compare the two 1.8% periods, and the conclusion is that supply side stimulus with an extra recession is as good as demand side stimulus without the extra recession.
(10-01-2016, 06:39 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]Truth is southern secession was a last resort measure because they could see no other way to preserve what they saw as their rights.  By the way Fort Sumpter was never in any danger of being seized, if it was the Confederacy would never have sent a peace commission in the first place.

THEIR "RIGHT" TO OWN OTHER HUMAN BEINGS. The Southern "way of life" was pure evil and deserved to be destroyed. As far as I'm concerned the Confederacy was something akin to Nazi Germany, it needed to be destroyed just like the Nazis needed to be destroyed.
(10-02-2016, 05:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]1945 was a war year, partially.  1946 was entirely a postwar year.  Therefore, the change from 1945, which ended after the end of the war, to 1946, which both began and ended after the war, is absolutely part of the postwar change.  Your excluding it is the worst of cherry picking.  If we did the analysis month by month, the postwar period would likely look even worse due to including the immediate postwar months at the end of 1945; even my numbers are cherry picking in your favor a bit.

And again, look back at David Horn's post which started this discussion.  He said, "witness the dramatic change between 1945 and 1973" in his argument for demand side Keynesianism (emphasis mine).  That's why I used 1945-1973 even though, as you point out, 1973 was cherry picked in his favor a bit; my argument about the "early 1970s" being bad should include 1974 and 1975, both of which saw negative economic growth and would show the postwar years as being even worse, with growth at 1.6%  rather than 1.8%.

As for the source of the data, I was using your site.  However, while most of my numbers, including the key 1980-2000 number, are correct, I used the wrong denominator for 1980-2010.  I will go back and correct that post.

So, let's do direct comparisons relative to the business cycle.  For the postwar years from just before a recession to just before a recession, we'll use David Horn's 1945-1973 period.  For an apples to apples comparison of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years, we use my preferred period of 1980-2000, which is again just before a recession to just before a recession.  (You could start it in 1980 if you wanted to exclude Carter's last year of growth, but the number is still the same.)

1945-1973 - 1.8% annual per capita GDP growth, prerecession to prerecession
1980-2000 - 2.3% annual per capita GDP growth, prerecession to prerecession

Supply stimulus is clearly better than demand side stimulus.

Or if you want to end the supply side period in 2010, just after a recession - three decades with one more contraction than expansion - the supply side record drops to 1.8%.  But if you extend the postwar period to three decades by ending it in 1975, so that it also includes an extra cocntraction, it drops to 1.6%.  So again, supply side stimulus works better.

Or, you can compare the two 1.8% periods, and the conclusion is that supply side stimulus with an extra recession is as good as demand side stimulus without the extra recession.

Much of the growth in the American economy is in people paying more for property rent and medical (especially nursing-home) care with no improvement in the quality of what they pay for. If the growth does not result in a higher quality of life, then the economic measures showing growth are suspect.
(10-03-2016, 11:31 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-02-2016, 05:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]1945 was a war year, partially.  1946 was entirely a postwar year.  Therefore, the change from 1945, which ended after the end of the war, to 1946, which both began and ended after the war, is absolutely part of the postwar change.  Your excluding it is the worst of cherry picking.  If we did the analysis month by month, the postwar period would likely look even worse due to including the immediate postwar months at the end of 1945; even my numbers are cherry picking in your favor a bit.

And again, look back at David Horn's post which started this discussion.  He said, "witness the dramatic change between 1945 and 1973" in his argument for demand side Keynesianism (emphasis mine).  That's why I used 1945-1973 even though, as you point out, 1973 was cherry picked in his favor a bit; my argument about the "early 1970s" being bad should include 1974 and 1975, both of which saw negative economic growth and would show the postwar years as being even worse, with growth at 1.6%  rather than 1.8%.

As for the source of the data, I was using your site.  However, while most of my numbers, including the key 1980-2000 number, are correct, I used the wrong denominator for 1980-2010.  I will go back and correct that post.

So, let's do direct comparisons relative to the business cycle.  For the postwar years from just before a recession to just before a recession, we'll use David Horn's 1945-1973 period.  For an apples to apples comparison of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years, we use my preferred period of 1980-2000, which is again just before a recession to just before a recession.  (You could start it in 1980 if you wanted to exclude Carter's last year of growth, but the number is still the same.)

1945-1973 - 1.8% annual per capita GDP growth, prerecession to prerecession
1980-2000 - 2.3% annual per capita GDP growth, prerecession to prerecession

Supply stimulus is clearly better than demand side stimulus.

Or if you want to end the supply side period in 2010, just after a recession - three decades with one more contraction than expansion - the supply side record drops to 1.8%.  But if you extend the postwar period to three decades by ending it in 1975, so that it also includes an extra cocntraction, it drops to 1.6%.  So again, supply side stimulus works better.

Or, you can compare the two 1.8% periods, and the conclusion is that supply side stimulus with an extra recession is as good as demand side stimulus without the extra recession.

Much of the growth in the American economy is in people paying more for property rent and medical (especially nursing-home) care with no improvement in the quality of what they pay for. If the growth does not result in a higher quality of life, then the economic measures showing growth are suspect.

Both Mikebert and I are using inflation adjusted figures, so paying more for the same thing is factored out of the numbers.

To the extent people are buying more nursing home care, for example, it's because they are using it more instead of dying before they need it.  You can argue about whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's legitimately part of the economy.
(10-02-2016, 05:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]1945 was a war year, partially.  1946 was entirely a postwar year.  Therefore, the change from 1945, which ended after the end of the war, to 1946, which both began and ended after the war, is absolutely part of the postwar change.  Your excluding it is the worst of cherry picking.  If we did the analysis month by month, the postwar period would likely look even worse due to including the immediate postwar months at the end of 1945; even my numbers are cherry picking in your favor a bit.

And again, look back at David Horn's post which started this discussion.  He said, "witness the dramatic change between 1945 and 1973" in his argument for demand side Keynesianism (emphasis mine).  That's why I used 1945-1973 even though, as you point out, 1973 was cherry picked in his favor a bit; my argument about the "early 1970s" being bad should include 1974 and 1975, both of which saw negative economic growth and would show the postwar years as being even worse, with growth at 1.6%  rather than 1.8%.

As for the source of the data, I was using your site.  However, while most of my numbers, including the key 1980-2000 number, are correct, I used the wrong denominator for 1980-2010.  I will go back and correct that post.

So, let's do direct comparisons relative to the business cycle.  For the postwar years from just before a recession to just before a recession, we'll use David Horn's 1945-1973 period.  For an apples to apples comparison of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years, we use my preferred period of 1980-2000, which is again just before a recession to just before a recession.  (You could start it in 1980 if you wanted to exclude Carter's last year of growth, but the number is still the same.)

1945-1973 - 1.8% annual per capita GDP growth, prerecession to prerecession
1980-2000 - 2.3% annual per capita GDP growth, prerecession to prerecession

Supply stimulus is clearly better than demand side stimulus.

Or if you want to end the supply side period in 2010, just after a recession - three decades with one more contraction than expansion - the supply side record drops to 1.8%.  But if you extend the postwar period to three decades by ending it in 1975, so that it also includes an extra contraction, it drops to 1.6%.  So again, supply side stimulus works better.

Or, you can compare the two 1.8% periods, and the conclusion is that supply side stimulus with an extra recession is as good as demand side stimulus without the extra recession.

I pulled all the NIPA tables for the period 1929 to 2015, and the periods under Democratic Presidents were far and away better performers.   I haven't finished with the new set, because the chained basis was altered over the set, but I have an older set from 1929 through the 2007 in the GWB Presidency.  If I eliminate all the gains and losses from Hoover, FDR and Truman (in other words, just the core post-war period through 2007), the Democrats show an annual 3.92% GDP gain in chained dollars. The GOP, just 2.56%.  I didn't even include the huge losses from 2007 crash.

Frankly, I don't see how you make your case.
Warren,  you are compared apples with oranges.  In your 1980-2000 comparison you are including the tax-cut stimulus in 1981.  In your 1945-1973 comparison you leave out the demand stimulus over 1941-45 and begin your comparison with the start of austerity after the war.  Here are the figures.  The government ran enormous deficits to fund the war.  During this time growth was spectacular. When the war ended so did the war spending and the deficit shrank rapidly from 21% in 1945 to 7% in 1946 and to a 1.6% surplus in 1947. As a result negative GDP growth was seen in 1945, 46 and 47. You chose to include all the negative impact of unwinding the war spending while leaving out all the growth that had happened in the previous years.  Most of the post war decline was the war economy falling back to peacetime baseline (but even with the 7% decline in 1946, GDPpc in that years was 44% higher than it had been in 1940).  In other words the majority of the WW II economic expansion was retained.

1946 was a banner year for business; consumers were flush with saving that they could not spend during the war years because of rationing.  This can be seen by the S&P500 index values I provide.  So 1946 is remembered as a prosperous year even though its economic stats are terrible.  This of course is because the country had to returned to a peacetime economy.  Factories were running to make consumer goods to meet market demand and not running flat out to make as much war materiel as humanly possible.  So GDP was lower in 1946 but actual consumption higher.

Year       GDPpc  Fiscal Bal              S&P500
1941       16.6%    -3.8%                     9.8
1942       17.6%    -12.4%                  8.7
1943       15.4%    -26.9%                  11.5
1944       6.7%      -21.2%                  12.5
1945       -2.0%     -20.8%                  15.2
1946       -12.5%  -7.0%                     17.1
1947       -3.0%     1.6%                      15.2
1948       2.4%      4.3%                      15.5
1949       -2.3%     0.2%                      15.2
1950       6.9%      -1.0%                     18.4

If you really want to do an apples to apples comparison and want to compare demand versus supply-side stimulus you would compare 1981-2000 (business cycle peak to peak) to 1937-1973 (again peak to peak)  In this comparison the effects of the stimulus (WW II and 1981 tax cut),  the post-stimulus recession, and the "afterglow" for both periods are considered.

Alternately if you don't want WW II massively affecting your results you would start your comparison well clear of it.  This is why I initially chose 1950 and 1980 as my terminal points (Notice the round years ending in zero). Since you put attention on the late 1960's I put in an arbitrary breakpoint in 1965. I chose those specifically to avoid a charge of cherry picking, which you made anyways.  A commonly used period is 1947-73 because 1947 is when NIPA data begin.  Data before 1947 is reconstructed/estimated by historians. 
(10-03-2016, 05:53 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-02-2016, 05:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]1945 was a war year, partially.  1946 was entirely a postwar year.  Therefore, the change from 1945, which ended after the end of the war, to 1946, which both began and ended after the war, is absolutely part of the postwar change.  Your excluding it is the worst of cherry picking.  If we did the analysis month by month, the postwar period would likely look even worse due to including the immediate postwar months at the end of 1945; even my numbers are cherry picking in your favor a bit.

And again, look back at David Horn's post which started this discussion.  He said, "witness the dramatic change between 1945 and 1973" in his argument for demand side Keynesianism (emphasis mine).  That's why I used 1945-1973 even though, as you point out, 1973 was cherry picked in his favor a bit; my argument about the "early 1970s" being bad should include 1974 and 1975, both of which saw negative economic growth and would show the postwar years as being even worse, with growth at 1.6%  rather than 1.8%.

As for the source of the data, I was using your site.  However, while most of my numbers, including the key 1980-2000 number, are correct, I used the wrong denominator for 1980-2010.  I will go back and correct that post.

So, let's do direct comparisons relative to the business cycle.  For the postwar years from just before a recession to just before a recession, we'll use David Horn's 1945-1973 period.  For an apples to apples comparison of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years, we use my preferred period of 1980-2000, which is again just before a recession to just before a recession.  (You could start it in 1980 if you wanted to exclude Carter's last year of growth, but the number is still the same.)

1945-1973 - 1.8% annual per capita GDP growth, prerecession to prerecession
1980-2000 - 2.3% annual per capita GDP growth, prerecession to prerecession

Supply stimulus is clearly better than demand side stimulus.

Or if you want to end the supply side period in 2010, just after a recession - three decades with one more contraction than expansion - the supply side record drops to 1.8%.  But if you extend the postwar period to three decades by ending it in 1975, so that it also includes an extra contraction, it drops to 1.6%.  So again, supply side stimulus works better.

Or, you can compare the two 1.8% periods, and the conclusion is that supply side stimulus with an extra recession is as good as demand side stimulus without the extra recession.

I pulled all the NIPA tables for the period 1929 to 2015, and the periods under Democratic Presidents were far and away better performers.   I haven't finished with the new set, because the chained basis was altered over the set, but I have an older set from 1929 through the 2007 in the GWB Presidency.  If I eliminate all the gains and losses from Hoover, FDR and Truman (in other words, just the core post-war period through 2007), the Democrats show an annual 3.92% GDP gain in chained dollars. The GOP, just 2.56%.  I didn't even include the huge losses from 2007 crash.

Frankly, I don't see how you make your case.

So now that you've lost your argument on economic policy, you're going to try to obfuscate the discussion with irrelevancies like the political party of the President?  Sorry, but I won't bite - aside from the fact that Congress has as much influence as the President on economic policy, there have been economically excellent Democratic presidents, such as Kennedy with his successful supply side tax cut, and economically atrocious Republican presidents, such as Nixon with his abortive attempts at centralized control of the economy, or Hoover with his disastrous demand side Keynesian spending.
Supply side works only for the wealthy.
Mike, you're seriously going to try to pass off 1937, in the middle of the Great Depression, as a "peak"? Come on.
These topics have been discussed on many threads here, with lots of stats and evidence. It's clear that keynes works and supply side does not; and that the economy performs better for most people under Democrats than Republicans.

1937 or 1936 would have been a time when keynesian economics had been applied for a year or two, and mostly was after that for 45 years. Supply side was applied starting in 1981, and mostly since then; as well as before the 1930s.
(10-03-2016, 07:42 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-01-2016, 06:39 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]Truth is southern secession was a last resort measure because they could see no other way to preserve what they saw as their rights.  By the way Fort Sumpter was never in any danger of being seized, if it was the Confederacy would never have sent a peace commission in the first place.

THEIR "RIGHT" TO OWN OTHER HUMAN BEINGS. The Southern "way of life" was pure evil and deserved to be destroyed. As far as I'm concerned the Confederacy was something akin to Nazi Germany, it needed to be destroyed just like the Nazis needed to be destroyed.

Its not like Lincoln really didn't gave a shit about it until about 1862, all you have to do is look up his speeches and writings to figure that out.  The War Between the States had far more to do with economics and power.  Abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison and Lysander Spooner would have been perfectly happy to let the southern states go.  Without the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 slavery would have ended without war as it had everywhere else with the exception of Haiti.  It should be pretty clear from the Corwin amendment and its ratification by several of the more powerful northern states indicates that slavery was never an insurmountable issue.

Personally, I would regard ending slavery without the huge body count and the behemoth of Federal Government that we ultimately ended up with would have been a far better result.
(10-04-2016, 04:39 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-03-2016, 07:42 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-01-2016, 06:39 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]Truth is southern secession was a last resort measure because they could see no other way to preserve what they saw as their rights.  By the way Fort Sumpter was never in any danger of being seized, if it was the Confederacy would never have sent a peace commission in the first place.

THEIR "RIGHT" TO OWN OTHER HUMAN BEINGS. The Southern "way of life" was pure evil and deserved to be destroyed. As far as I'm concerned the Confederacy was something akin to Nazi Germany, it needed to be destroyed just like the Nazis needed to be destroyed.

Its not like Lincoln really didn't gave a shit about it until about 1862, all you have to do is look up his speeches and writings to figure that out.  The War Between the States had far more to do with economics and power.  Abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison and Lysander Spooner would have been perfectly happy to let the southern states go.  Without the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 slavery would have ended without war as it had everywhere else with the exception of Haiti.  It should be pretty clear from the Corwin amendment and its ratification by several of the more powerful northern states indicates that slavery was never an insurmountable issue.

Personally, I would regard ending slavery without the huge body count and the behemoth of Federal Government that we ultimately ended up with would have been a far better result.

Southern pro-slavery ideology was becoming MORE extreme as time went on, they would have held on to slavery until some outside power forced them to or until a massive slave revolt destroyed the entire system and massacred the entire ruling class. There was no escaping a body count.

And that you keep calling it the "war between the states", a common Neo-Confederate usage, tells me everything I need to know about you.
(10-03-2016, 10:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-03-2016, 05:53 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-02-2016, 05:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]1945 was a war year, partially.  1946 was entirely a postwar year.  Therefore, the change from 1945, which ended after the end of the war, to 1946, which both began and ended after the war, is absolutely part of the postwar change.  Your excluding it is the worst of cherry picking.  If we did the analysis month by month, the postwar period would likely look even worse due to including the immediate postwar months at the end of 1945; even my numbers are cherry picking in your favor a bit.

And again, look back at David Horn's post which started this discussion.  He said, "witness the dramatic change between 1945 and 1973" in his argument for demand side Keynesianism (emphasis mine).  That's why I used 1945-1973 even though, as you point out, 1973 was cherry picked in his favor a bit; my argument about the "early 1970s" being bad should include 1974 and 1975, both of which saw negative economic growth and would show the postwar years as being even worse, with growth at 1.6%  rather than 1.8%.

As for the source of the data, I was using your site.  However, while most of my numbers, including the key 1980-2000 number, are correct, I used the wrong denominator for 1980-2010.  I will go back and correct that post.

So, let's do direct comparisons relative to the business cycle.  For the postwar years from just before a recession to just before a recession, we'll use David Horn's 1945-1973 period.  For an apples to apples comparison of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years, we use my preferred period of 1980-2000, which is again just before a recession to just before a recession.  (You could start it in 1980 if you wanted to exclude Carter's last year of growth, but the number is still the same.)

1945-1973 - 1.8% annual per capita GDP growth, prerecession to prerecession
1980-2000 - 2.3% annual per capita GDP growth, prerecession to prerecession

Supply stimulus is clearly better than demand side stimulus.

Or if you want to end the supply side period in 2010, just after a recession - three decades with one more contraction than expansion - the supply side record drops to 1.8%.  But if you extend the postwar period to three decades by ending it in 1975, so that it also includes an extra contraction, it drops to 1.6%.  So again, supply side stimulus works better.

Or, you can compare the two 1.8% periods, and the conclusion is that supply side stimulus with an extra recession is as good as demand side stimulus without the extra recession.

I pulled all the NIPA tables for the period 1929 to 2015, and the periods under Democratic Presidents were far and away better performers.   I haven't finished with the new set, because the chained basis was altered over the set, but I have an older set from 1929 through the 2007 in the GWB Presidency.  If I eliminate all the gains and losses from Hoover, FDR and Truman (in other words, just the core post-war period through 2007), the Democrats show an annual 3.92% GDP gain in chained dollars. The GOP, just 2.56%.  I didn't even include the huge losses from 2007 crash.

Frankly, I don't see how you make your case.

So now that you've lost your argument on economic policy, you're going to try to obfuscate the discussion with irrelevancies like the political party of the President?  Sorry, but I won't bite - aside from the fact that Congress has as much influence as the President on economic policy, there have been economically excellent Democratic presidents, such as Kennedy with his successful supply side tax cut, and economically atrocious Republican presidents, such as Nixon with his abortive attempts at centralized control of the economy, or Hoover with his disastrous demand side Keynesian spending.

Since you seem unconvinced that the party of the President is at least indicative of the economic policies of the period, then tell me how great the supply side experiments in Louisiana and Kansas are going. 

Arguing that Kennedy was a supply sider by virtue of cutting the top marginal rate to a mere 70% is a tough sell.  Look at the results that can be quantified.  Reagan's cuts did nothing to speak of, except raise the US debt.  Clinton actually presided over a more growth following his tax increases.  The entire supply side argument rests on the nonsense that there is inadequate capital available, and we must encourage it into the market.  Why?  Never mind that we are awash in excess capital, capital is only invested when a market can be addressed.  That requires disposable income in the hands of willing consumers ... which is in less than adequate supply at the moment.
(10-04-2016, 04:39 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-03-2016, 07:42 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-01-2016, 06:39 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]Truth is southern secession was a last resort measure because they could see no other way to preserve what they saw as their rights.  By the way Fort Sumpter was never in any danger of being seized, if it was the Confederacy would never have sent a peace commission in the first place.

THEIR "RIGHT" TO OWN OTHER HUMAN BEINGS. The Southern "way of life" was pure evil and deserved to be destroyed. As far as I'm concerned the Confederacy was something akin to Nazi Germany, it needed to be destroyed just like the Nazis needed to be destroyed.

Its not like Lincoln really didn't gave a shit about it until about 1862, all you have to do is look up his speeches and writings to figure that out.  The War Between the States had far more to do with economics and power.  Abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison and Lysander Spooner would have been perfectly happy to let the southern states go.  Without the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 slavery would have ended without war as it had everywhere else with the exception of Haiti.  It should be pretty clear from the Corwin amendment and its ratification by several of the more powerful northern states indicates that slavery was never an insurmountable issue.

Personally, I would regard ending slavery without the huge body count and the behemoth of Federal Government that we ultimately ended up with would have been a far better result.

But the slave-owners did not trust Abraham Lincoln. He did not recognize slavery as a glorious institution, so to the increasingly-extreme proponents of slavery, he was no better than a radical abolitionist.  That's about how the NRA sees someone who endorses banning people on the no-fly list from having firearms or (as I do) prohibiting the transportation of firearms and ammunition into a state in violation of that state's laws. (That is roughly the language of the 18th Amendment prohibiting the import of alcoholic beverages into a state in violation of that state's laws). I use a state's rights argument in favor of state gun laws. If the state of New York prohibits you from buying a firearm in New York, then you should not be able to buy a gun in Virginia and bring it into New York State.

I am tempted to believe that Abe Lincoln was going to use the British model of abolition (buy slaves from owners) to put an end to slavery in America. That would have solved the question of slavery once and for all in America without a war. The Civil War made such a sensible approach to slavery impossible. The price of freedom for blacks would be paid by soldiers who would die defending a slave system or destroying the slave system. No money could ever change hands in the transaction. The US government bought the freedom of slaves in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri with cash or bonds, just as the British did.

It was the US Army that insisted that Abraham Lincoln abolish slavery as it came into possession of slaves (who could not be returned to their recent owner)s, as Lincoln sought to destroy the agrarian system that fed Confederate soldiers and their cavalry horses.  The Union Army came in possession of much contraband: food and fiber stocks, railroads and rail cars, firearms and ammunition, livestock, and other stuff that the Union Army could keep in possession. Slaves were a different classification of property. The US Army did not want to own them. It also wanted slaves to escape to Union lines. It was willing to free them and hire them to work on fortifications and other objects of military usefulness.

The Army insisted that Lincoln free the slaves. Lincoln saw the logic of permanently emancipating slaves in Union custody as contraband and any who had fled their recent masters. The Confederacy collapsed in part because the escape of slaves to Union lines while the usual free laborers were off fighting starved the Confederate Army.
We are almost at the halfway mark for this 4T, assuming we began in 2008.

As of 2016...
-almost all the GIs are gone, a few remain

-silents are dying out. They are financially well off it seems. Polite, humble but I did find them hypocritical. They were the kinds of people to sweep things under the rug. I'm sad to see the Silent generation die out though. I liked them a lot. I miss my silent grandparents.

-Boomers are entering their 60s but are not retiring like previous 60 year olds were. They seem much younger personality wise compared to the Silents but a lot of boomers are very obnoxious and entitled, worse than the Millennials. These are peak times for the Boomers and I think whoever becomes president next will do some pretty powerful things as a last minute resort before the Boomers are out of the picture. There will be a more emphasis on healthcare and coverage as the Boomers will need things to take care of their bodies as they age (hearing aids, glasses, canes, wheelchairs, medication), the Boomers born in the 1950s will also be a force in legalizing medical marijuana in the 2020s. I think the boomers will try to deny death as long as they can and when it inevitably comes, they'll take a very spiritual route about it.

-X generation are entering the mid fifities now. I remember when the Xers were the 20 and 30 somethings back in the 1990s. Many of them are becoming grandparents and they do make very protective parents. Xers can be very negative and immature at times but they're very independent and take a no nonsense attitude towards a lot of things. They've had a harsh life and wore themselves out early. I'm starting to notice that Xers are increasingly acting old and exhausted. Xers seem to move around a lot, the ones I know of moved repeatedly in their adult lives. Most of them also have had somewhat estranged relationships with their parents it seems. Xers sure do like to rebel though and be "bad".

-Millennails... oh lord, they're finally growing up it seems. The core Millennials born in the early 90s are coming of age now. "Adulting" has become a popular new slogan. Millennals in general certainly are more team oriented and upbeat compared to the Xers but I tbink many Millennial men born in the 80s carry Xer traits. The youngest of the Millies are in the 6th grade now and within 6 years, they'll all be in rising adulthood. After this, the eldest Millennials will be nearing their 40s and start to bring about their civic traits now that they have more control over society. A war is likely to occur in the early 2020s but the economy will boom.

-Homelanders- they're coming of age with hardly any news spoken of them and are now being raised under heavy protection. Their cohort since 2007 have been getting smaller which ties in that artists tend to be smaller in size. But it does seem that this generation will be more ethnic but less immigrant.
(10-07-2016, 04:57 PM)FLBones Wrote: [ -> ]"Adulting" has become a popular new slogan.

Hah! An old classmate of mine uses that term a lot and I have found myself using it more and more. Big Grin
(10-03-2016, 10:35 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]Mike, you're seriously going to try to pass off 1937, in the middle of the Great Depression, as a "peak"?  Come on.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

1937 was the business cycle peak according to the NBER which is the organization that tracks such things.  But I didn't use 1937 for the very reason you mentioned.  I chose to use round dates of 1950-1980, for which you accused me of cherry picking.  And I showed that if you change your choice of years from 1945-1973 to 1946-1973--just a one year difference, you get a completely different result that invalidates your conclusion (and supports mine).  So who is cherry picking here? In fact to make your argument work you pretty much HAVE to start in 1945 or 1944.
(10-07-2016, 04:57 PM)FLBones Wrote: [ -> ]The youngest of the Millies are in the 6th grade now and within 6 years, they'll all be in rising adulthood. After this, the eldest Millennials will be nearing their 40s and start to bring about their civic traits now that they have more control over society. A war is likely to occur in the early 2020s but the economy will boom.

It seems you accept 2003 as the last millennial birth year.
(10-08-2016, 03:58 PM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-07-2016, 04:57 PM)FLBones Wrote: [ -> ]The youngest of the Millies are in the 6th grade now and within 6 years, they'll all be in rising adulthood. After this, the eldest Millennials will be nearing their 40s and start to bring about their civic traits now that they have more control over society. A war is likely to occur in the early 2020s but the economy will boom.

It seems you accept 2003 as the last millennial birth year.

FWIW, my 2004 cohort grandchildren have all the Artist traits, so add me to the 2003-4 transition list ... anecdotal though my evidence may be.
I'm not convinced that the differentiation between Civics and Adaptives occurs before the Crisis War. I thought my kids, born in 2008, 2010, and 2012, seemed like adaptives because they were shy with strangers, but that may be true for all kids of that age.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8