Has the regeneracy arrived?

[Warren Dew]

(01-25-2017, 07:49 AM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 10:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 07:30 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: The majority of Taiwanese don't even identify as Chinese anymore.

I find that hard to believe.  Do you have a reference?  Even the Taiwanese language is dying if not dead.

There are multiple "Taiwanese" languages: various aboriginal languages, the Hakka and other dialects brought over by the first (Southern) Chinese settlers in the early Modern period, and then the huge influx of Mandarin speakers after the Civil War.  But yeah, largely Mandarin, at least formally.

The references for the shift in identification from "Chinese" to "Taiwanese" are here.  It's more like the shift in colonists' attitudes from being "British" to being "American" even though they still spoke the same language.

So we're talking more about political identification than cultural identification.  I can see that.

Your survey says "18 percent of respondents said they would like to see the “status quo” maintained in cross-strait relations, while 5.9 percent said they would prefer an immediate declaration of independence ... respondents supporting unification with China dropped to 9.2 percent".  That leaves a heck of a lot of undecideds, and more supporting reunification than independence.

While I don't think "an offer they can't refuse" would go over well, it might be possible for China to reach an agreement that allowed Taiwan to retain their military.  Of course, everyone except Trump is pretty happy with the status quo as well.

If everyone acted rationally, the US would agree to return to the "one China" policy, China would abandon their artificial islands, and the US would acquiesce in China's commercial agreements to develop oil sources in the South China Sea.  The problem is whether the politicians could sell this as a victory to their respective supporters on both sides.

Militarily, what's enforceable is for the US to start basing in Taiwan and for China to control the South China Sea through artificial islands.  That would be a worse result for both sides, since Taiwan would become a realistic existential threat to China, and Chinese control of the South China Sea would become an existential threat to the US control of the global maritime trade regime.  That result is ripe for escalating missteps.  Unfortunately, given it's a crisis period, maybe that result is also the most likely result.

[SomeGuy]

(01-25-2017, 11:11 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 07:49 AM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 10:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 07:30 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: The majority of Taiwanese don't even identify as Chinese anymore.

I find that hard to believe.  Do you have a reference?  Even the Taiwanese language is dying if not dead.

There are multiple "Taiwanese" languages: various aboriginal languages, the Hakka and other dialects brought over by the first (Southern) Chinese settlers in the early Modern period, and then the huge influx of Mandarin speakers after the Civil War.  But yeah, largely Mandarin, at least formally.

The references for the shift in identification from "Chinese" to "Taiwanese" are here.  It's more like the shift in colonists' attitudes from being "British" to being "American" even though they still spoke the same language.

So we're talking more about political identification than cultural identification.  I can see that.

Your survey says "18 percent of respondents said they would like to see the “status quo” maintained in cross-strait relations, while 5.9 percent said they would prefer an immediate declaration of independence ... respondents supporting unification with China dropped to 9.2 percent".  That leaves a heck of a lot of undecideds, and more supporting reunification than independence.

While I don't think "an offer they can't refuse" would go over well, it might be possible for China to reach an agreement that allowed Taiwan to retain their military.  Of course, everyone except Trump is pretty happy with the status quo as well.

If everyone acted rationally, the US would agree to return to the "one China" policy, China would abandon their artificial islands, and the US would acquiesce in China's commercial agreements to develop oil sources in the South China Sea.  The problem is whether the politicians could sell this as a victory to their respective supporters on both sides.

Militarily, what's enforceable is for the US to start basing in Taiwan and for China to control the South China Sea through artificial islands.  That would be a worse result for both sides, since Taiwan would become a realistic existential threat to China, and Chinese control of the South China Sea would become an existential threat to the US control of the global maritime trade regime.  That result is ripe for escalating missteps.  Unfortunately, given it's a crisis period, maybe that result is also the most likely result.

Exactly.

[David Horn]

(01-24-2017, 01:11 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 12:28 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Personally, I would rather the US abandon its efforts at hegemony, cut what deals it needs to preserve its most important geopolitical interests, maintain a military for defensive purposes only, and focus on rebuilding its infrastructure and industry, but I am not sure that there is enough political support for all of that in Congress.  We may have to muddle through a while longer.

So do I.  And if we get that then your view of how this 4T plays out will come true.  But your basic M&T cycle calls for the macrodecision phase to end around 2050, so this would be early.

To most Americans, it's our world to use as we please ... until it actually costs us something to 'use'.  Trumps is playing with fire, because that's just how he operates.  The Congress seems to be OK with him beating his chest, as long as they get the things they want.  In short: a muddle.  The neoliberals that are dominant in Congress only want tax cuts and reduce spending (on things they hate, at least).  Trump wants to be seen as the fixer who did it all.  This could resolve into a step back from the world ... or not.  It seems more likely that we will piss off a lot of friends, and make enemies of adversaries, but avoid an outright war.  The economy will do well for a while, then it may crash. 

We're in uncharted waters here.

[David Horn]

(01-24-2017, 08:31 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- progressive?? progressive??!!!!!!!??   :Rofl:

Omfg Eric you're funny 

This left wing blogger sez it alot better than l ever could so l'll let her take it from here:

http://www.newslogue.com/debate/300

This read like a massive tantrum.  Sorry, but actually having goals is really important ... as she noted herself.  She has none either.  Neither do others claiming to be beacons in the dark.  In short, the left is effectively self-neutered, and not getting any better at the moment.  I hope that changes while I'm still around to see it, but so far, nada.

[SomeGuy]

(01-25-2017, 12:46 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 08:31 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- progressive?? progressive??!!!!!!!??   :Rofl:

Omfg Eric you're funny 

This left wing blogger sez it alot better than l ever could so l'll let her take it from here:

http://www.newslogue.com/debate/300

This read like a massive tantrum.  Sorry, but actually having goals is really important ... as she noted herself.  She has none either.  Neither do others claiming to be beacons in the dark.  In short, the left is effectively self-neutered, and not getting any better at the moment.  I hope that changes while I'm still around to see it, but so far, nada.

I agree, the left is quite frequently absolutely useless. 

[Marypoza]

(01-25-2017, 12:52 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 12:46 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 08:31 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- progressive?? progressive??!!!!!!!??   :Rofl:

Omfg Eric you're funny 

This left wing blogger sez it alot better than l ever could so l'll let her take it from here:

http://www.newslogue.com/debate/300

This read like a massive tantrum.  Sorry, but actually having goals is really important ... as she noted herself.  She has none either.  Neither do others claiming to be beacons in the dark.  In short, the left is effectively self-neutered, and not getting any better at the moment.  I hope that changes while I'm still around to see it, but so far, nada.

I agree, the left is quite frequently absolutely useless

-- l would say she's venting,  but yeah..... l also think that's her point. She's venting @  the Dem leadership, you know, the ppl that are supposed to be setting the goals but are instead on a barge floating down a certain river in Egypt (& probably eating grapes too!) But more to the point, Eric was bitching bcuz l (accidentally) linked him to a right wing blogger so l linked him to one from the left

[pbrower2a]

Thread deserving a revival. 

We might ask ourselves whether we (1) have gotten an abortive Regeneracy and reverted to a Degeneracy, (2) had a false Regeneracy (worst example -- Nazi Germany establishing a consensus behind racism and militarism as a substitute for weak and ineffective government.. mercifully we are not that bad), (3) show signs of a Regeneracy in massive opposition to Trump and the GOP, (4) are on the brink of one as a trend or a mass movement hostile to the revived Degeneracy, (5) had our chance and missed it -- with the true Regeneracy imposed from the outside (as by the IMF) or never happening, or (6) whether (God forbid!) Donald Trump is the Regeneracy and an unstoppable Wave of the Future.  

If (6), then I see a metaphor for a sick new order -- a boot grinding itself into a face.

[Warren Dew]

Need a crisis war before we get a regeneracy.

[Skabungus]

(02-10-2020, 01:35 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Need a crisis war before we get a regeneracy.

I tend to think we are in the closing stage of the crisis.  The big show (or showdown) is the next act.  I however have no idea whether that will be a war with another nation, a war of sorts within our nation, or an economic crisis.  Whatever it is, I see the era of Trump as the last act in the crisis.  Shit gonna get worse before it gets better.

[Eric the Green]

(02-10-2020, 02:04 PM)Skabungus Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 01:35 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Need a crisis war before we get a regeneracy.

I tend to think we are in the closing stage of the crisis.  The big show (or showdown) is the next act.  I however have no idea whether that will be a war with another nation, a war of sorts within our nation, or an economic crisis.  Whatever it is, I see the era of Trump as the last act in the crisis.  Shit gonna get worse before it gets better.

We don't need a war before we get a regeneracy. Last time, happy days are here again was the regeneracy. This time, the uprising by the Parkland kids and the climate change kids, and the regeneracy of congress in Nov.2018, is the regeneracy.

The regeneracy is underway, and we face battles ahead. So much needs to be changed that even in a 4T, it will take 9 years to get things done and break down the walls of resistance put up by the powerful right-wing extremists who are trying to keep America white, keep themselves well armed, and keep Reaganomics going. This could involve a violent rebellion by the right wing extremists, likely at mid-decade but possible after whoever takes office this January, and likely if the liberals are able to take power during this 4T. Foreign troubles with the terrorists or amid middle east troubles are likely too by mid-decade.

I agree "Shit gonna get worse before it gets better." But precisely because of this, the 4T will extend beyond the era of Trump, until 2029. Don't underestimate the extent of what needs to be changed, and the power of the resistance, before we can enter any kind of closing stage. And if the blue side does not win, then this closing stage is the first stage of rapid decline both for America and for civilization worldwide.

[pbrower2a]

(02-10-2020, 01:35 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Need a crisis war before we get a regeneracy.

Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (Second Gulf War -- not the first) might qualify as Crisis wars. It may be impossible to initiate the sorts of genocidal wars of conquest as Hitler and Tojo did. The colonial empires that were zones of conflict in Africa, Asia, and the insular Pacific basin are no more. Hitler's racist bigotry against a religion (Hitler's antisemitism was in practice racist) is refuted for its ethical consequences. 

The Crisis could be a war that we somehow avoid due to astute conduct of the political leadership. OK, that is clearly lacking now. 

What will be a Regeneracy? I am tempted to see a Regeneracy as a recognition of the need for pervasive change in our political, cultural, and economic assumptions. Unless Trump gets re-elected in a landslide (indicating that he has convinced Americans that he has the solutions) he will not bring about any Regeneracy except as a rejection of him. 

Someone did bring up a thread, essentially a rehash of the Skowronek cycle, that holds that Donald Trump is the last, tired expression of the last Presidency to shake things up. The flaws of Reagan's vision always were evident, but they had power behind them. Trump, even without serious flaws of character (see also Hoover and Carter) is the last representative of an ideology that either lost its way (Hoover having gone far from the Progressive reforms of Theodore Roosevelt) or has lost its constituency (as FDR's New Deal coalition aged into political irrelevancy).  With Trump, the intellectual basis of his time is shaky at best. "Donald Trump thought" is little different from the vicious, vacuous thought of Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh is apparently dying of late-stage lung cancer, and his material does not go so well as a written word as it goes as broadcast material. 

The Skowronek cycle suggests that Donald Trump will be a one-term President. Like Carter he had a weak mandate to push his agenda; like Hoover he has bungled many critical issues.  The next President will ride the tide, if not initiate, a liberal path that reshapes American life in many ways. Donald Trump will serve as the political scapegoat.

[David Horn]

(02-10-2020, 02:04 PM)Skabungus Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 01:35 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Need a crisis war before we get a regeneracy.

I tend to think we are in the closing stage of the crisis.  The big show (or showdown) is the next act.  I however have no idea whether that will be a war with another nation, a war of sorts within our nation, or an economic crisis.  Whatever it is, I see the era of Trump as the last act in the crisis.  Shit gonna get worse before it gets better.

The worst part is: extreme rightwing nationalism is getting to be a worldwide phenomenon.  The center stopped holding sometime ago.  That's certainly bad, in and of itself, but it may be a precursor to a more universal solution.  Brexit shows all the signs of going poorly, Trump is now irritating even many of the faithful. The Orbans, Dutertes of the world are slowly dragging their countries into messes they can't remedy using national assets.  So a good solid economic collapse could pull all this down without violence.  Any ideas on how that might happen?

[Warren Dew]

(02-10-2020, 02:23 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 01:35 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Need a crisis war before we get a regeneracy.

Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (Second Gulf War -- not the first) might qualify as Crisis wars.

Did you know anyone who died in Afghanistan or Iraq?  Neither do I.  I don't even know anyone who fought in either, and I'm former military.

There's no way these are a crisis war for the US.  For Afghanistan or Iraq, maybe, but not for us.  Vietnam wasn't a crisis war either, and it was way bigger than these.

[Warren Dew]

(02-10-2020, 02:04 PM)Skabungus Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 01:35 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Need a crisis war before we get a regeneracy.

I tend to think we are in the closing stage of the crisis.  The big show (or showdown) is the next act.  I however have no idea whether that will be a war with another nation, a war of sorts within our nation, or an economic crisis.  Whatever it is, I see the era of Trump as the last act in the crisis.  Shit gonna get worse before it gets better.

I'm inclined to agree.  I don't think it could be just an economic crisis - an economic crisis that caused a revolution, perhaps - but your other possibilities, along with a WWII style overseas war in which we intervene, are quite possible.  It could even be, for example, a 5 year period of tit for tat nuclear exchanges with various fission powers.

So far, I would say Trump has been postponing the crisis.  I think the driving force behind crises is concentration of politicoeconomic power, and the resentment against the most powerful by others.  Under Trump the economy has been just strong enough for the "others" to be making just enough progress - things like 1% real wage increases - to avoid an open revolt, which puts off the crisis.

Of course, it's ideal for the US for us to put off the crisis as long as possible here, so we end up with a relatively safe intervention in overseas wars.  We can hope it breaks out in Europe or China first.

[Warren Dew]

(02-10-2020, 03:14 PM)David Horn Wrote: The worst part is: extreme rightwing nationalism is getting to be a worldwide phenomenon.  The center stopped holding sometime ago.  That's certainly bad, in and of itself, but it may be a precursor to a more universal solution.  Brexit shows all the signs of going poorly, Trump is now irritating even many of the faithful. The Orbans, Dutertes of the world are slowly dragging their countries into messes they can't remedy using national assets.  So a good solid economic collapse could pull all this down without violence.  Any ideas on how that might happen?

Sanders or Warren getting elected would certainly give us a "good solid economic collapse".  Whether that would end without violence is another matter.

[Eric the Green]

(02-10-2020, 04:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 03:14 PM)David Horn Wrote: The worst part is: extreme rightwing nationalism is getting to be a worldwide phenomenon.  The center stopped holding sometime ago.  That's certainly bad, in and of itself, but it may be a precursor to a more universal solution.  Brexit shows all the signs of going poorly, Trump is now irritating even many of the faithful. The Orbans, Dutertes of the world are slowly dragging their countries into messes they can't remedy using national assets.  So a good solid economic collapse could pull all this down without violence.  Any ideas on how that might happen?

Sanders or Warren getting elected would certainly give us a "good solid economic collapse".  Whether that would end without violence is another matter.

Democrats stimulate the economy. They provide assistance to people who spend money to keep the economy going.

Republicans always crash the economy. The Trump economy was given to him by Obama, and he is weakening it.

Reaganomics is mistaken. Giving tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and removing needed regulations on them does not trickle down. It only benefits the rich.

[Eric the Green]

(02-10-2020, 04:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 02:04 PM)Skabungus Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 01:35 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Need a crisis war before we get a regeneracy.

I tend to think we are in the closing stage of the crisis.  The big show (or showdown) is the next act.  I however have no idea whether that will be a war with another nation, a war of sorts within our nation, or an economic crisis.  Whatever it is, I see the era of Trump as the last act in the crisis.  Shit gonna get worse before it gets better.

I'm inclined to agree.  I don't think it could be just an economic crisis - an economic crisis that caused a revolution, perhaps - but your other possibilities, along with a WWII style overseas war in which we intervene, are quite possible.  It could even be, for example, a 5 year period of tit for tat nuclear exchanges with various fission powers.

So far, I would say Trump has been postponing the crisis.  I think the driving force behind crises is concentration of politicoeconomic power, and the resentment against the most powerful by others.  Under Trump the economy has been just strong enough for the "others" to be making just enough progress - things like 1% real wage increases - to avoid an open revolt, which puts off the crisis.

Of course, it's ideal for the US for us to put off the crisis as long as possible here, so we end up with a relatively safe intervention in overseas wars.  We can hope it breaks out in Europe or China first.

"a relatively safe intervention in overseas wars?" That would 
a) not be a 4T, and/or
b) probably not safe

[David Horn]

(02-10-2020, 04:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 03:14 PM)David Horn Wrote: The worst part is: extreme rightwing nationalism is getting to be a worldwide phenomenon.  The center stopped holding sometime ago.  That's certainly bad, in and of itself, but it may be a precursor to a more universal solution.  Brexit shows all the signs of going poorly, Trump is now irritating even many of the faithful. The Orbans, Dutertes of the world are slowly dragging their countries into messes they can't remedy using national assets.  So a good solid economic collapse could pull all this down without violence.  Any ideas on how that might happen?

Sanders or Warren getting elected would certainly give us a "good solid economic collapse".  Whether that would end without violence is another matter.

There are too many issues hanging fire for either Liz or Bernie to do more than steer the ship of state to the left.  None of the massive programs has a chance of being implemented soon, though all would be beneficial for the country.  Cutting healthcare costs, raising taxes on the rich and making life more affordable for the 90% who need real raises and programs to help them live in the modern world will happen, eventually.  Eventually isn't now.

We've lived in the New Gilded Age long enough, but an exit -- any exit -- will be tedious.  The PTB will throw down every possible roadblock.  The political instructions are tilted right by Constitutional design.  Barring a total collapse that forces a real solution, the gains will clawed out bit by bit.

[pbrower2a]

(02-10-2020, 04:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 03:14 PM)David Horn Wrote: The worst part is: extreme rightwing nationalism is getting to be a worldwide phenomenon.  The center stopped holding sometime ago.  That's certainly bad, in and of itself, but it may be a precursor to a more universal solution.  Brexit shows all the signs of going poorly, Trump is now irritating even many of the faithful. The Orbans, Dutertes of the world are slowly dragging their countries into messes they can't remedy using national assets.  So a good solid economic collapse could pull all this down without violence.  Any ideas on how that might happen?

Sanders or Warren getting elected would certainly give us a "good solid economic collapse".  Whether that would end without violence is another matter.

The two biggest economic collapses in the last 95 years (the 1920-1921 collapse was nasty, but I don't have an easy way of comparing it to other collapses) were those of 1929 and 2007, both of which resulted from financial panics in the wake of speculative bubbles doing what they usually do. Such bubbles, coincidentally having the sponsorship of conservative Presidents, devour capital while creating illusory wealth. When the paper profits show their fraudulence, the bubble bursts. At this point we would mostly be scared if the government promoted a debt-fueled speculative boom to solve our problems. Real estate is out of the question as an object of such an absurd boom for another seventy years.  Some other downturns (1937, 1958, 1968) have corresponded with the end of some big engineering project -- 1936 with the completion of the Transbay and Golden Gate bridges inear San Francisco, Hoover Dam on the Colorado, and the George Washington Bridge (such projects devour iron or concrete during construction), the Mackinac Bridge (plenty of overtime for iron miners and steelworkers until completion), and the Verazzano Narrows Bridge  between Stan Island and Queens. Boston'e Big Dig was completed in the late-middle of the Double-Zero Decade, so its completion may have  made a recession certain.

Nobody is pushing a speculative boom of any kind in anything. Trump's idea of improvement in infrastructure is that people pay more for what they get and the economy calls such 'progress'. A $20 toll where the recent toll was $5 is not my idea of progress, which in technological terms means that one gets to buy a 32" flat-screen high-definition TV for about $100 at Wally World instead of paying $700 in 1980 dollars for a 25" CRT television back in 1980. Paying more and getting less or being priced out of something is not my idea of progress.  

The next semblance of boom times for real estate will be an analogue to the late 1940's and early 1950's -- when the Crisis is undeniably over, and with thrift instead of money-printing as the means of acquiring the capital. Those houses will remind one of Malvina Reynolds' "Little boxes, little boxes... and they're all made of ticky-tacky and they all look the same". People won't complain because they are an improvement over the awful, crowded apartments that people had been renting for too much. Figuring that a High is a time that eschews big debt and insists upon pay-as-you-go financing instead of rushing bloated programs, we will have a stable basis for prosperity.   

So what was the big give-away program to the masses that led to collapses in either the 1920's or the Double-Zero Decade? 

Maybe it is the "little boxes, little boxes, all made of ticky-tacky and they all look the same"  that will be torn down  this time, and more efficient housing. replacing them.  That has already started with tiny 70-year-old bungalows at the end of their design life going bad and becoming unarketable as living space. So far that means big apartment complexes, and with those come heavier traffic that has taken away one of the rural characteristics of suburbia. 

So what is wrong with a big social program? It might not work. How can we know? The recent neoliberal dogma has been that labor must become dirst cheap and constraints against monopolization must vanish so that the system can promote maximal growth... never mind that the vast majority of people never get to share in it.

[Warren Dew]

(02-10-2020, 05:26 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 04:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Of course, it's ideal for the US for us to put off the crisis as long as possible here, so we end up with a relatively safe intervention in overseas wars.  We can hope it breaks out in Europe or China first.

"a relatively safe intervention in overseas wars?" That would 
a) not be a 4T, and/or
b) probably not safe

A relatively safe intervention in overseas wars was what got us out of the crisis last time around.  "Relatively safe" can be a far cry from "safe" on an absolute scale, of course.