Current anomaly: Five generations alive!

[Tim Randal Walker]

I over simplified-I actually meant the cumulative reforms of Progressive Era/New Deal/Boom Awakening.

And who might be willing to fight for the gains of the past? I think Jones wavers might be good candidates. Old enough to have some sense of the larger world during the first half of the Awakening, and then having a young adulthood in a disappointing time. (Remember Malaise?). I recall someone describing Jones members of being idealistic, but with a tough outer skin.

Gen X is too cynical.

[David Horn]

(03-20-2019, 11:28 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(03-19-2019, 09:38 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-18-2019, 01:00 PM)jleagans Wrote: There are always five generations alive, this isn't an anomaly.  The archetype that is being born is the oldest archetype alive, right now our artists are dying and being born.

When turnings were longer and life expectancy shorter, that was not really true.  Yes, have always been a few superannuated people, but not enough to count as a generation … until now.

Yes, but that was 200 years ago. The problem is the missing Civil War civic generation. Obviously for the theory to have even facial plausibility there has to have been this generation. This was pointed out at the T4T site nearly 20 years ago, and several posters came up with alternate turnings that reflected this. Dave Krein posited a 4T ending at the same time as did Reconstruction in 1877. This would leave a 1T featuring the boom to 1881, and then the period of oscillating Republican-Democratic administrations of the 1880's and early 1890's with the end coming at Panic of 1893. David McGuiness argued for a 2T beginning with the Columbian Exposition in 1893 and ending with the Titanic disaster that contained the Populist and Progressive movements and the rise of the Social Gospel and German higher criticism and the reactionary response in Fundamentalism and the Pentecostal movement. This makes the 3T 1912-1929.

This gives the set of Artists, Prophets, Nomads and Civic present for the last 4T born in 1857-1874, 1875-1889, 1890-1908, and 1909-1924. This makes the youngest Artists about 72 at the end of the 4T, compared 77 for Artists today.  With dating that doesn't skip an entire generation, last cycle's artists are a lot younger and plenty of them were still around during the last 4T.

Agreed, but life expectancy has ballooned in that last few decades (~12 years since the end of WW-II):



The reasons are myriad, but the results are pretty impressive.  We have never had this level of generational overlap in the past.

[Hintergrund]

(03-22-2019, 04:26 PM)Mikebert Wrote: 2. People thought the 4T began in 2008 back in 2001? Really? How would they know?

In 2008 most of us (included me) had dropped the 2001 date, if we hadn't already, in favor of 2008. Right after 2008 it look VERY much like a 4T start. But as the years have gone by it has looked less and less so.

My point exactly. 2001 (more American victims than Pearl Harbor!) would have justified a total change in politics, but didn't. 2008 would have justified, but again it did not happen. The powerful Silents are very successful at lobbying.

[Mikebert]

(03-22-2019, 04:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Again, I think you are being too impatient. We should not have expected an FDR in the 2010s; only politicians like those in the 1850s. Pierce is even a Bush ancestor, if I remember correctly. It still feels like the 3T, just as the 1850s did. But the crisis is ongoing anyway, and will climax on schedule. 

Obama tried to shift away from the Reagan policies, but the nation is too divided for that to stick. The division continued and gave us the Tea Party and Trump. Our crisis is really not economic, primarily, but political polarization. That is the real nature of this 4T, in a double rhythm with the 1850-1865 crisis.

But you may be too optimistic. A 2008 start can only hold if things happen fast. In 2016 I had thought we would already be in recession by now, with a second financial panic happening in the first half of this year, with unemployment peaking in late 2020. In this case, whichever party won in 2016 would get slaughtered in 2018 and 2020. In this scenario, the 4T structural changes would be implemented during the 2020's and the 4T would finish up in the late 2020's or early 2030's, in line with a 2008 start.

Well the recession has been delayed. I don't think the business cycle has been repealed, we are still going to get a recession and it will almost certainly be serious because asset prices are so extreme. But now it looks like whichever party wins in 2020 will get slaughtered.

If this is the Dems (which I believe is what you forecasted years ago), then the GOP will probably gain control of the House, a filibuster-proof Senate and the presidency in 2024.  This means 8 years of GOP rule. We know what that looks like.  Tax cuts and conservative judges.  In other words 2020-2032 will look a lot like 2000-2020. In this scenario, if anything like 4T restructuring is to happen, it would have to be after 2032. This makes the 2008 start completely untenable.

If recession has not yet gotten underway and the GOP wins narrowly in 2020, then Dems stand to win big in 2022 and 2024. In this case, it is *possible* that 4T restructuring could be implemented over the next 8 years, in which case a 2008-2032 4T would make sense.

But for the GOP to win in 2020, it would mean the expansion is still ongoing. In July of this year the expansion will reach 121 months, and surpass the previous record of 120 months. The longer the expansion continues the greater the departure from the past. Already asset valuations have reached a new plane of existence. It is possible that our political and economic system is undergoing a phase transition to a new reality that is a complete break with the past. A world in which voodoo (economics) becomes real and "when we act...we create our own reality"[Karl Rove]. This is the world of neocon reality, Stephen Moore (Trump's Fed nomination) and Kevin Hassett (Trump econ advisor and Dow 36K author).

Maybe this phase transition would be the 4T structural change, which would support a 2001 date for the 4T start. In this case Republicans would win in 2020 and again in 2024 and again....it would be like the post- Civil War era. In 20 years we would be in the world of Ready Player One.

[David Horn]

(03-24-2019, 08:03 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(03-22-2019, 04:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Again, I think you are being too impatient. We should not have expected an FDR in the 2010s; only politicians like those in the 1850s. Pierce is even a Bush ancestor, if I remember correctly. It still feels like the 3T, just as the 1850s did. But the crisis is ongoing anyway, and will climax on schedule. 

Obama tried to shift away from the Reagan policies, but the nation is too divided for that to stick. The division continued and gave us the Tea Party and Trump. Our crisis is really not economic, primarily, but political polarization. That is the real nature of this 4T, in a double rhythm with the 1850-1865 crisis.

But you may be too optimistic. A 2008 start can only hold if things happen fast. In 2016 I had thought we would already be in recession by now, with a second financial panic happening in the first half of this year, with unemployment peaking in late 2020. In this case, whichever party won in 2016 would get slaughtered in 2018 and 2020. In this scenario, the 4T structural changes would be implemented during the 2020's and the 4T would finish up in the late 2020's or early 2030's, in line with a 2008 start.

Well the recession has been delayed. I don't think the business cycle has been repealed, we are still going to get a recession and it will almost certainly be serious because asset prices are so extreme. But now it looks like whichever party wins in 2020 will get slaughtered.

If this is the Dems (which I believe is what you forecasted years ago), then the GOP will probably gain control of the House, a filibuster-proof Senate and the presidency in 2024.  This means 8 years of GOP rule. We know what that looks like.  Tax cuts and conservative judges.  In other words 2020-2032 will look a lot like 2000-2020. In this scenario, if anything like 4T restructuring is to happen, it would have to be after 2032. This makes the 2008 start completely untenable.

If recession has not yet gotten underway and the GOP wins narrowly in 2020, then Dems stand to win big in 2022 and 2024. In this case, it is *possible* that 4T restructuring could be implemented over the next 8 years, in which case a 2008-2032 4T would make sense.

But for the GOP to win in 2020, it would mean the expansion is still ongoing. In July of this year the expansion will reach 121 months, and surpass the previous record of 120 months. The longer the expansion continues the greater the departure from the past. Already asset valuations have reached a new plane of existence. It is possible that our political and economic system is undergoing a phase transition to a new reality that is a complete break with the past. A world in which voodoo (economics) becomes real and "when we act...we create our own reality"[Karl Rove]. This is the world of neocon reality, Stephen Moore (Trump's Fed nomination) and Kevin Hassett (Trump econ advisor and Dow 36K author).

Maybe this phase transition would be the 4T structural change, which would support a 2001 date for the 4T start. In this case Republicans would win in 2020 and again in 2024 and again....it would be like the post- Civil War era. In 20 years we would be in the world of Ready Player One.

Personally, I'm going with a failed 4T scenario.  Yes, we'll have a recession at some point, though how deep and how long is still and open question.  This time, large tax increases and more public non-defense spending will have to be part of the solution, or things will just deteriorate, stagnate and become the photo-opposite of stagflation.  I doubt either party benefits if that occurs, so it's either the radical Dems or nothing.  Judging by the faith in institutions that has been systematically degraded by the FoX hounds and others, 'nothing' seems more likely.  That will mark the end of the American Century.  Whether China picks up the ball, and what game it plays, will determine the future from that point.

We're at a very perilous point.  There aren't many with real vision on what to do next, and none of them seems poised to bump-Trump in 2020 -- at least so far.  The most rational and visionary of the lot is Pete Buttigieg, and he's a long shot at best.

[pbrower2a]

So can we have a Crisis that fizzles? Maybe the Crisis is nothing more than a test of an economic paradigm and the politics backing it up... that fails. So we end up going from a raw deal for most of us (and a harsh civics lesson instead of an apocalypse). The best that I can hope for is a social-market economy, one that produces well but also distributes the proceeds fairly. I can imagine far worse.

[Eric the Green]

(03-25-2019, 01:03 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-24-2019, 08:03 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(03-22-2019, 04:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Again, I think you are being too impatient. We should not have expected an FDR in the 2010s; only politicians like those in the 1850s. Pierce is even a Bush ancestor, if I remember correctly. It still feels like the 3T, just as the 1850s did. But the crisis is ongoing anyway, and will climax on schedule. 

Obama tried to shift away from the Reagan policies, but the nation is too divided for that to stick. The division continued and gave us the Tea Party and Trump. Our crisis is really not economic, primarily, but political polarization. That is the real nature of this 4T, in a double rhythm with the 1850-1865 crisis.

But you may be too optimistic. A 2008 start can only hold if things happen fast. In 2016 I had thought we would already be in recession by now, with a second financial panic happening in the first half of this year, with unemployment peaking in late 2020. In this case, whichever party won in 2016 would get slaughtered in 2018 and 2020. In this scenario, the 4T structural changes would be implemented during the 2020's and the 4T would finish up in the late 2020's or early 2030's, in line with a 2008 start.

Well the recession has been delayed. I don't think the business cycle has been repealed, we are still going to get a recession and it will almost certainly be serious because asset prices are so extreme. But now it looks like whichever party wins in 2020 will get slaughtered.

If this is the Dems (which I believe is what you forecasted years ago), then the GOP will probably gain control of the House, a filibuster-proof Senate and the presidency in 2024.  This means 8 years of GOP rule. We know what that looks like.  Tax cuts and conservative judges.  In other words 2020-2032 will look a lot like 2000-2020. In this scenario, if anything like 4T restructuring is to happen, it would have to be after 2032. This makes the 2008 start completely untenable.

If recession has not yet gotten underway and the GOP wins narrowly in 2020, then Dems stand to win big in 2022 and 2024. In this case, it is *possible* that 4T restructuring could be implemented over the next 8 years, in which case a 2008-2032 4T would make sense.

But for the GOP to win in 2020, it would mean the expansion is still ongoing. In July of this year the expansion will reach 121 months, and surpass the previous record of 120 months. The longer the expansion continues the greater the departure from the past. Already asset valuations have reached a new plane of existence. It is possible that our political and economic system is undergoing a phase transition to a new reality that is a complete break with the past. A world in which voodoo (economics) becomes real and "when we act...we create our own reality"[Karl Rove]. This is the world of neocon reality, Stephen Moore (Trump's Fed nomination) and Kevin Hassett (Trump econ advisor and Dow 36K author).

Maybe this phase transition would be the 4T structural change, which would support a 2001 date for the 4T start. In this case Republicans would win in 2020 and again in 2024 and again....it would be like the post- Civil War era. In 20 years we would be in the world of Ready Player One.

Personally, I'm going with a failed 4T scenario.  Yes, we'll have a recession at some point, though how deep and how long is still and open question.  This time, large tax increases and more public non-defense spending will have to be part of the solution, or things will just deteriorate, stagnate and become the photo-opposite of stagflation.  I doubt either party benefits if that occurs, so it's either the radical Dems or nothing.  Judging by the faith in institutions that has been systematically degraded by the FoX hounds and others, 'nothing' seems more likely.  That will mark the end of the American Century.  Whether China picks up the ball, and what game it plays, will determine the future from that point.

We're at a very perilous point.  There aren't many with real vision on what to do next, and none of them seems poised to bump-Trump in 2020 -- at least so far.  The most rational and visionary of the lot is Pete Buttigieg, and he's a long shot at best.

A VERY long shot, forever and always. 

Remember my point always. Engaged Democrats tend to think that a rational and visionary candidate can win. That is not true. Geeks and wonks do not win. If the Democratic candidate is to win, smarts are needed, but even more, the right personality and communication skills are needed.

However, what is not a long shot, is that this 4T is only half way through. During the last similar 4T, at this point in its run, we had an incompetent president who made excuses for the South, and people were about to start fighting in Kansas. It certainly seemed like a failed scenario. It would NOT be a 4T if things felt like they were getting resolved. During most of a 4T, "We're at a very perilous point." We are in a crisis and a battle for our lives and the life of our nation. Unless and until we win at the end of the 4T, we won't even know if we will survive or not. That's what a crisis is.

[Eric the Green]

(03-24-2019, 08:03 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(03-22-2019, 04:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Again, I think you are being too impatient. We should not have expected an FDR in the 2010s; only politicians like those in the 1850s. Pierce is even a Bush ancestor, if I remember correctly. It still feels like the 3T, just as the 1850s did. But the crisis is ongoing anyway, and will climax on schedule. 

Obama tried to shift away from the Reagan policies, but the nation is too divided for that to stick. The division continued and gave us the Tea Party and Trump. Our crisis is really not economic, primarily, but political polarization. That is the real nature of this 4T, in a double rhythm with the 1850-1865 crisis.

But you may be too optimistic.

I confess; sometimes I am

Quote:A 2008 start can only hold if things happen fast. In 2016 I had thought we would already be in recession by now, with a second financial panic happening in the first half of this year, with unemployment peaking in late 2020. In this case, whichever party won in 2016 would get slaughtered in 2018 and 2020. In this scenario, the 4T structural changes would be implemented during the 2020's and the 4T would finish up in the late 2020's or early 2030's, in line with a 2008 start.

Well the recession has been delayed. I don't think the business cycle has been repealed, we are still going to get a recession and it will almost certainly be serious because asset prices are so extreme. But now it looks like whichever party wins in 2020 will get slaughtered.

If this is the Dems (which I believe is what you forecasted years ago), then the GOP will probably gain control of the House, a filibuster-proof Senate and the presidency in 2024.  This means 8 years of GOP rule. We know what that looks like.  Tax cuts and conservative judges.  In other words 2020-2032 will look a lot like 2000-2020. In this scenario, if anything like 4T restructuring is to happen, it would have to be after 2032. This makes the 2008 start completely untenable.

If recession has not yet gotten underway and the GOP wins narrowly in 2020, then Dems stand to win big in 2022 and 2024. In this case, it is *possible* that 4T restructuring could be implemented over the next 8 years, in which case a 2008-2032 4T would make sense.

But for the GOP to win in 2020, it would mean the expansion is still ongoing. In July of this year the expansion will reach 121 months, and surpass the previous record of 120 months. The longer the expansion continues the greater the departure from the past. Already asset valuations have reached a new plane of existence. It is possible that our political and economic system is undergoing a phase transition to a new reality that is a complete break with the past. A world in which voodoo (economics) becomes real and "when we act...we create our own reality"[Karl Rove]. This is the world of neocon reality, Stephen Moore (Trump's Fed nomination) and Kevin Hassett (Trump econ advisor and Dow 36K author).

Maybe this phase transition would be the 4T structural change, which would support a 2001 date for the 4T start. In this case Republicans would win in 2020 and again in 2024 and again....it would be like the post- Civil War era. In 20 years we would be in the world of Ready Player One.

Did things happen fast in the 1850s? Not toward a solution. Of course now things are going along pretty much as I expected. I expected an economic recovery in the mid and later 2010s; it happened just as I said. I have expected a mild downturn at the end of the decade. We have seen some indications of this, but the slowdown has been very mild so far. But that's as much as I expect from the business cycle; not another great recession. I have predicted there will not be another great recession this century, though obviously climate change puts everything in peril. But I expect ongoing solutions to this crisis from today onward will help mitigate this.

It is very likely that "4T structural changes would be implemented during the 2020's." It is this that I have always predicted, and that the GOP does not have the ability to do this. Exactly how this plays out in the 2020 election is still up in the air though; which Democratic candidate is chosen will determine who wins. If they choose anyone but McAuliffe or Landrieu, the Dems may lose. If they pick Bernie or Joe, they might win, but they might lose too. IF they choose anyone besides these four, the Dems will lose to Trump.

But if things continue to go as I expect, this progressive period of change will happen in the 2020s, regardless of any second great recession or no recession; even if the Dems don't take the White House back until 2024, and even if they keep it only one term, great change will happen. If Trump wins in 2020, it won't be long before congress effectively runs the country. An economic collapse is not the only motivator of change, especially since the mid 2010s recovery still left many people still working paycheck to paycheck and under-employed, and inequality is still growing; and this motivates the left enough, along with the Trump crisis, the climate crisis, the gun crisis, and so on. Change in the 2020s will be swift and deep, even if there is no great recession beforehand.

You can't base predictions on one pre-conceived assumption, such as that change only comes after a big economic collapse. Events are more complicated than that.

Edit to Add: Recall that a pro-northern, anti-slavery administration also only lasted for four years during the civil war 4T. Lincoln's successor defended southern rights. In that time too, congress effectively ruled the country (but in the early 4T that time, as I see it). After Johnson, the country arrived at a compromise consensus during the 1T, first with a milder reconstruction era, and then with a still-cruel black/white aparteid without official slavery but in a tighter national union. So, we may get a Lincoln elected in 2024. McAuliffe already compares himself to Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry; why not Lincoln too? They are both Aquarius. This edit is just speculation, I admit.

[Eric the Green]

So far, the predicted downturn for the end of this decade has been mild. But hard Brexit puts our economy at greater risk. It will be very bad for Britain, and its effects could spill over into the USA, Europe and the anglosphere at least.

I'd say that if the voters were to blame Trump for a Brexit-triggered economic slide, the blame would be well-placed. It was his kind of nationalism that he and others stirred up that led to the Brexit debacle.

[David Horn]

(03-25-2019, 11:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: So far, the predicted downturn for the end of this decade has been mild. But hard Brexit puts our economy at greater risk. It will be very bad for Britain, and its effects could spill over into the USA, Europe and the anglosphere at least.

I'd say that if the voters were to blame Trump for a Brexit-triggered economic slide, the blame would be well-placed. It was his kind of nationalism that he and others stirred up that led to the Brexit debacle.

There is a small group of cognoscenti who believe that the correlation between the presence of Murdock Media and White Nationalism is not a coincidence, and the steady barrage of pro-right, anti-left punditry has had similar effects in the three countries Murdock dominates: the US, UK and Australia.  That makes the Murdock corporate entity a shadow government when the right is in power, and a political attack dog under the left.  All three nations have large contingents of anti-immigrant and anti-globalist sentiment, and all share the same hyper-partisanship.  

If that prevails over time, those three bulwarks of democracy may transition to something a lot darker.  Nothing good can come from that.

[Hintergrund]

The yuge crash is still coming. It's been postponed, but will come with interest.

[Anthony '58]

No way was 2008 the start of any Crisis. Unemployment only got up to 10.2% (in October 2019) - while in November and December of 1982 it reached 10.8%.

Yet 9/11 never really changed anything: Not only didn't the Culture Wars not diffuse, they actually intensified - Lawrence v. Texas, 2003, Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 2018.

So what I have chosen to do is to do something unique and declare 9/11 a "half-catalyst" that moved us into a place between a 3T and 4T - where we will remain until the 2020 election, when a Super Civil War Anomaly (and a Second Civil War itself) will break out.

[Ghost]

(08-11-2019, 09:12 AM)Anthony Wrote: No way was 2008 the start of any Crisis.  Unemployment only got up to 10.2% (in October 2019) - while in November and December of 1982 it reached 10.8%.

Yet 9/11 never really changed anything: Not only didn't the Culture Wars not diffuse, they actually intensified - Lawrence v. Texas, 2003, Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 2018.

So what I have chosen to do is to do something unique and declare 9/11 a "half-catalyst" that moved us into a place between a 3T and 4T - where we will remain until the 2020 election, when a Super Civil War Anomaly (and a Second Civil War itself) will break out.

What do you think are the "bridge zones" between the turnings? In my opinion, they go like this:

4T to 1T: 1942-1945 (starts with Stalingrad and ends with the end of WWII)

1T to 2T: 1960-1965 (starts with the introduction of the birth control pill and ends with the start of America's involvement in Vietnam)

2T to 3T: 1978-1984 (starts with Carter's popularity slightly slipping and ends with Reagan's 1984 landslide victory)

3T to 4T: 2001-2008 (starts with 9/11 and ends with the 2008 financial crisis)

One common trend I seem to notice is that over time, bridge zones between "turning periods" keep getting bigger.

Bridge between 4T and 1T is 3 years long.
Bridge between 1T and 2T is 5 years long.
Bridge between 2T and 3T is 6 years long.
Bridge between 3T and 4T is 7 years long.

I really do not know if 2T/3T bridge is correct and if it isn't, please let me know.

[pbrower2a]

(05-14-2019, 08:22 PM)Hintergrund Wrote: The yuge crash is still coming. It's been postponed, but will come with interest.

Economic inequality is as severe as it was going into 1929 and 2008. If you thought Hoover a poor match for an economic meltdown, then wait till you see Trump. If Hoover did not know what Keynes had to offer, Trump fully repudiates Keynes.

America needed to learn a hard lesson about the unreliability of Supply-Side economics. Privatize, monopolize, and reward the gougers with tax cuts and regulatory relief!

All eras are times in which people find out the hard way the lessons that people learned the hard way about eighty years earlier. We did not make a more just and equitable society except on LGBT rights. Monopolies and cartels still dominate the American economy.

[pbrower2a]

(08-11-2019, 10:54 AM)Ghost Wrote:

(08-11-2019, 09:12 AM)Anthony Wrote: No way was 2008 the start of any Crisis.  Unemployment only got up to 10.2% (in October 2019) - while in November and December of 1982 it reached 10.8%.

Yet 9/11 never really changed anything: Not only didn't the Culture Wars not diffuse, they actually intensified - Lawrence v. Texas, 2003, Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 2018.

So what I have chosen to do is to do something unique and declare 9/11 a "half-catalyst" that moved us into a place between a 3T and 4T - where we will remain until the 2020 election, when a Super Civil War Anomaly (and a Second Civil War itself) will break out.

What do you think are the "bridge zones" between the turnings? In my opinion, they go like this:

4T to 1T: 1942-1945 (starts with Stalingrad and ends with the end of WWII)

1T to 2T: 1960-1965 (starts with the introduction of the birth control pill and ends with the start of America's involvement in Vietnam)

2T to 3T: 1978-1984 (starts with Carter's popularity slightly slipping and ends with Reagan's 1984 landslide victory)

3T to 4T: 2001-2008 (starts with 9/11 and ends with the 2008 financial crisis)

One common trend I seem to notice is that over time, bridge zones between "turning periods" keep getting bigger.

Bridge between 4T and 1T is 3 years long.
Bridge between 1T and 2T is 5 years long.
Bridge between 2T and 3T is 6 years long.
Bridge between 3T and 4T is 7 years long.

I really do not know if 2T/3T bridge is correct and if it isn't, please let me know.

4T/1T-- I would use different years with 1944 as the death blows to Nazi Germany  (D-Day, fall of central Italy to the Allies, July 20 plot, King Michael's coup in Romania, Soviet advances to Belgrade, Budapest, and Warsaw, collapse of the Bulge) to 1948 (Czechoslovak coup, Berlin Airlift) deciding what Europe would mostly be like from 1948 to 1989. I will have to recognize that the Republic of China went from viable to doomed in 1948 as the result of one battle. That year the major war criminals convicted in the Tokyo trials are executed. I am going to call the collapse of Communist rule in central and Balkan Europe and the USSR as the definitive event of the 3T.

[Ghost]

(08-11-2019, 11:34 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-11-2019, 10:54 AM)Ghost Wrote:

(08-11-2019, 09:12 AM)Anthony Wrote: No way was 2008 the start of any Crisis.  Unemployment only got up to 10.2% (in October 2019) - while in November and December of 1982 it reached 10.8%.

Yet 9/11 never really changed anything: Not only didn't the Culture Wars not diffuse, they actually intensified - Lawrence v. Texas, 2003, Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 2018.

So what I have chosen to do is to do something unique and declare 9/11 a "half-catalyst" that moved us into a place between a 3T and 4T - where we will remain until the 2020 election, when a Super Civil War Anomaly (and a Second Civil War itself) will break out.

What do you think are the "bridge zones" between the turnings? In my opinion, they go like this:

4T to 1T: 1942-1945 (starts with Stalingrad and ends with the end of WWII)

1T to 2T: 1960-1965 (starts with the introduction of the birth control pill and ends with the start of America's involvement in Vietnam)

2T to 3T: 1978-1984 (starts with Carter's popularity slightly slipping and ends with Reagan's 1984 landslide victory)

3T to 4T: 2001-2008 (starts with 9/11 and ends with the 2008 financial crisis)

One common trend I seem to notice is that over time, bridge zones between "turning periods" keep getting bigger.

Bridge between 4T and 1T is 3 years long.
Bridge between 1T and 2T is 5 years long.
Bridge between 2T and 3T is 6 years long.
Bridge between 3T and 4T is 7 years long.

I really do not know if 2T/3T bridge is correct and if it isn't, please let me know.

4T/1T-- I would use different years with 1944 as the death blows to Nazi Germany  (D-Day, fall of central Italy to the Allies, July 20 plot, King Michael's coup in Romania, Soviet advances to Belgrade, Budapest, and Warsaw, collapse of the Bulge) to 1948 (Czechoslovak coup, Berlin Airlift) deciding what Europe would mostly be like from 1948 to 1989. I will have to recognize that the Republic of China went from viable to doomed in 1948 as the result of one battle.  That year the major war criminals convicted in the Tokyo trials are executed. I am going to call the collapse of Communist rule in central and Balkan Europe and the USSR as the definitive event of the 3T.

What are your thoughts about the other years I used (1960, 1965, 1978, 1984, 2001, 2008)?

[pbrower2a]

Not too bad.

I can't see an obvious difference in lengths. I heavily use music as metaphor, as you may have noticed. What could be more optimistic than this, something possible before the disclosure of the full horror of the atrocities of National Socialism?  Aaron Copland must have believed that the world would go back to normal. Such is what American and British propaganda offered... "There will be bluebirds over/The White Cliffs of Dover".






Aaron Copland was only 44 at the time, and he lived to age 90, but he could never write anything like this again. In the next year the Allied armies would expose the full horrors of the Holocaust, with six million people with ancestry like that of Aaron Copland being murdered in accordance with the hatred of people incapable of excusing innocence. Aaron Copland would have qualified as did composers Erwin Schulhoff, Hans Krasa, and Victor Ullmann for some whiffs of Zyklon-B for being a Jewish Untermensch.

This is a great score of music, arguably on par with the score of Stravinsky's Sacre du Printemps of similar length. If both express  primitivism in music, Stravinsky's barbarous and decadent 1913 work gets more play in concert halls. If Copland's score culminates in the elevation of Simple Gifts, Stravinsky's ballet culminates in a human sacrifice -- which in view of what Russia was like then, suggests a pogrom as in Kishinev in 1905.


.




Which better fits the twentieth century and which better fits Heaven?

[Mikebert]

(03-25-2019, 04:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Did things happen fast in the 1850s? Not toward a solution. 

You can't base predictions on one pre-conceived assumption, such as that change only comes after a big economic collapse. Events are more complicated than that.

Things happened very fast. Just three years after Dred Scott the South was seceding. A little more than four years after that the South had been utterly defeated. The Southern ruling class lost 60% of their wealth and ceased to play any significant national role for more than a century. I call that massive structural change.

Economic collapse is only one route to the sort of structural change I am talking about. It's the mildest form. Civil war is another. So is revolution, and mass-mobilization warfare. Environmental catastrophe is another. 

Major structural changes are not merely changes in government from. The Black Death was a major structural change in that the population had fallen by 50% by the end of the century. The government structure hardly changed. The War of the Roses was a major structural change because it eliminated the greater part of the English elites reducing polarization and allowing the population to begin to recover from the Black Death that had happened more than a century earlier.

The English Civil War was a major change in the government, the monarchy was abolished, briefly replaced with a republic, which devolved into a dictatorship, and then went back to a monarchy. The net effect was nil. Two turnings later they was another major change in government, the monarchy was replaced with a constitutional monarch with a new King, who also ruled over a commercial republic, in which other elites had a lot of say. This system was more or less exported to Britain and is the system still in use today. Tis structural change stuck.

The rest of the 4Ts we are already familiar with.

But in each of these periods there was a conflict, the losing side did not go gently into that good night.

Now both of us, I am sure, would agree that the Republican dispensation in force since 1980 is not going to form the basis for structural change. And I cannot see any dispensation forming around Democrats who promise many things this year cannot deliver any of them without a commanding majority in the Senate. Recall Dems that could not enact economic policy that successfully addressed the financial crisis. It was known THEN that the stimulus was three times too small. The inadequate policy they did get was the BEST they could get, and they had 59 seats! 

Even if Dems get 50 seats, how are they going to achieve with 50 what they couldn't get with 59?

If they are to make real change they need help from external events.

[pbrower2a]

(08-11-2019, 11:59 AM)Ghost Wrote:

(08-11-2019, 11:34 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-11-2019, 10:54 AM)Ghost Wrote:

(08-11-2019, 09:12 AM)Anthony Wrote: No way was 2008 the start of any Crisis.  Unemployment only got up to 10.2% (in October 2019) - while in November and December of 1982 it reached 10.8%.

Yet 9/11 never really changed anything: Not only didn't the Culture Wars not diffuse, they actually intensified - Lawrence v. Texas, 2003, Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 2018.

So what I have chosen to do is to do something unique and declare 9/11 a "half-catalyst" that moved us into a place between a 3T and 4T - where we will remain until the 2020 election, when a Super Civil War Anomaly (and a Second Civil War itself) will break out.

What do you think are the "bridge zones" between the turnings? In my opinion, they go like this:

4T to 1T: 1942-1945 (starts with Stalingrad and ends with the end of WWII)

1T to 2T: 1960-1965 (starts with the introduction of the birth control pill and ends with the start of America's involvement in Vietnam)

2T to 3T: 1978-1984 (starts with Carter's popularity slightly slipping and ends with Reagan's 1984 landslide victory)

3T to 4T: 2001-2008 (starts with 9/11 and ends with the 2008 financial crisis)

One common trend I seem to notice is that over time, bridge zones between "turning periods" keep getting bigger.

Bridge between 4T and 1T is 3 years long.
Bridge between 1T and 2T is 5 years long.
Bridge between 2T and 3T is 6 years long.
Bridge between 3T and 4T is 7 years long.

I really do not know if 2T/3T bridge is correct and if it isn't, please let me know.

4T/1T-- I would use different years with 1944 as the death blows to Nazi Germany  (D-Day, fall of central Italy to the Allies, July 20 plot, King Michael's coup in Romania, Soviet advances to Belgrade, Budapest, and Warsaw, collapse of the Bulge) to 1948 (Czechoslovak coup, Berlin Airlift) deciding what Europe would mostly be like from 1948 to 1989. I will have to recognize that the Republic of China went from viable to doomed in 1948 as the result of one battle.  That year the major war criminals convicted in the Tokyo trials are executed. I am going to call the collapse of Communist rule in central and Balkan Europe and the USSR as the definitive event of the 3T.

What are your thoughts about the other years I used (1960, 1965, 1978, 1984, 2001, 2008)?

60-65 -- the cultural euphoria that marks the transition from 1T to 2T. The change in musical expression says it all.

78-84 -- cultural change with the Boomers leaving childhood (the pop culture is made for teens, and Boomers were leaving teenage years). Disco seems to be a bad compromise between Boomer and X tastes, and it probably drove Boomers out of the pop culture. Pop musicians quit pretending to any expression of noble ideals as the music became pure hedonism or expression of anger.

01-08 -- an awkward time that began with one economic downturn (Enrob and the dot.fraud bust) and ended with the most dangerous economic meltdown since the Great Stock Market Crash. 9/11 is a 3T event, as Americans went back to free spending and a speculative boom ensued. In 2008 nothing that seemed to work before then could work.

Economic meltdowns as bad as the Panic of 1857, the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929, and the year-and-a-half meltdown beginning in 2007 late in a 3T suggest its end. The transition from 3T to 4T around 1930 begins with the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929 and has its first culmination in the rise of Hitler in Germany in 1933 -- really in a little more than three years.

[Anthony '58]

(08-11-2019, 10:54 AM)Ghost Wrote:

(08-11-2019, 09:12 AM)Anthony Wrote: No way was 2008 the start of any Crisis.  Unemployment only got up to 10.2% (in October 2019) - while in November and December of 1982 it reached 10.8%.

Yet 9/11 never really changed anything: Not only didn't the Culture Wars not diffuse, they actually intensified - Lawrence v. Texas, 2003, Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 2018.

So what I have chosen to do is to do something unique and declare 9/11 a "half-catalyst" that moved us into a place between a 3T and 4T - where we will remain until the 2020 election, when a Super Civil War Anomaly (and a Second Civil War itself) will break out.

What do you think are the "bridge zones" between the turnings? In my opinion, they go like this:

4T to 1T: 1942-1945 (starts with Stalingrad and ends with the end of WWII)

1T to 2T: 1960-1965 (starts with the introduction of the birth control pill and ends with the start of America's involvement in Vietnam)

2T to 3T: 1978-1984 (starts with Carter's popularity slightly slipping and ends with Reagan's 1984 landslide victory)

3T to 4T: 2001-2008 (starts with 9/11 and ends with the 2008 financial crisis)

One common trend I seem to notice is that over time, bridge zones between "turning periods" keep getting bigger.

Bridge between 4T and 1T is 3 years long.
Bridge between 1T and 2T is 5 years long.
Bridge between 2T and 3T is 6 years long.
Bridge between 3T and 4T is 7 years long.

I really do not know if 2T/3T bridge is correct and if it isn't, please let me know.

9/11 is still at the early end of your "bridge" range - but as I have stated previously, 9/11 caused a Civil War anomaly in reverse, since it did not unite the country the way Pearl Harbor did; indeed, the Culture Wars have not only raged on, but have become more violent - with the worst very likely to come, in Portland this coming Saturday.

As for the 2T/3T thing, the inauguration of Ronald Reagan and the concomitant release of the hostages from Iran works perfectly.  Take it from a dude who was there, and who saw the two events on split screen, as they happened, tying them up into a neat little red-white-and-blue bow - and putting me on the young side of a very real generational divide (up to that point I had always believed that "hippie" was short for "hypocrite" and that "New Age" rhymed with "sewage").