4T is Speeding Along Now

[Another Xer]

Hi all,
I am new to this site, though I first read the original Generations book when it was new and have discussed it and re-read it ever since.  It has really shaped my view of the world since early adulthood.  

It's a pretty interesting time to be alive in America right now.  We can see the 4T really speeding along now.  On the bright side, this turning does not seem to necessarily have to come with war and major bloodshed (maybe it will but that seems very avoidable at this point).  What we are seeing is the rapid destruction of the institutions that have been the hallmarks of the cycle.  

In government, we have a President elected by a minority of the voting public with the express goal of destroying the establishment (i.e. institutions and norms).  The Executive is at war with itself, with the President attacking the FBI and CIA, while hollowing out the State Department and Justice Department - leaving positions unfilled and making direct attacks on leadership.  Congress is an ocean of partisanship with all the old norms of bipartisanship fraying at the edges.  Gerrymandering has effectively ended democracy in some states and the filibuster is being picked apart at the edges and its demise is probably just a matter of time.  Even the Supreme Court is affected.  A popularly elected President was denied his Constitutional duty to select a justice and the selection was made by a President who lost the popular vote and with the support of Senators representing 45% of the US population.  What is the integrity of such institutions?   

Outside the world of government technology is destroying the norms most of us have grown up with.  Retail shopping has changed, financial investing has changed, job availability has changed, and while we have cool gadgets in our pockets, technology has even messed up music.  The world is changing rapidly and we will all adapt or die.  Many Gen Xers are choosing death (no surprise the opioid crisis is killing off middle aged white men).  The jobs of tomorrow will not look like the jobs of yesterday and economic anxiety is crippling communities across the nation.  All while the country is as rich as it has ever been - just in the hands of the few.  

An interesting time to visit a site like this.

[sbarrera]

Why were there no responses to this post two years ago??

i agree; we are seeing the old saeculum's institutions crumbling away. It is not without good reason that Trump has been called a "wrecking ball" President.

I also agree with the growing issue of inequality and the attendant economic anxiety. Will a progressive blue wave be able to reverse the trend? it's been two years since AnotherXer originally posted this and see it all hinging on this coming election. If the Democrats fail I say welcome to the NeoGilded Age. There is always talk about Revolution but I don't see that the people have the spirit for it; it's just a meme.

[Warren Dew]

(02-02-2020, 11:00 AM)sbarrera Wrote: I also agree with the growing issue of inequality and the attendant economic anxiety.

Inequality is not growing.  It maxed out around 2000, and had remained at a high level since.  Economic anxiety is growing as people realize it's a long term state of affairs.

Tearing down institutions may help, but the problem won't be resolved until the largest private institutions, like Google and Facebook, are broken up or crippled enough to permit competition.  Historically, that has not happened through political action alone.

[pbrower2a]

(04-18-2018, 05:52 PM)Another Xer Wrote: Hi all,
I am new to this site, though I first read the original Generations book when it was new and have discussed it and re-read it ever since.  It has really shaped my view of the world since early adulthood.  

It's a pretty interesting time to be alive in America right now.  We can see the 4T really speeding along now.  On the bright side, this turning does not seem to necessarily have to come with war and major bloodshed (maybe it will but that seems very avoidable at this point).  What we are seeing is the rapid destruction of the institutions that have been the hallmarks of the cycle.

We are also learning the hard way why those institutions are vital.  

Quote:In government, we have a President elected by a minority of the voting public with the express goal of destroying the establishment (i.e. institutions and norms).  The Executive is at war with itself, with the President attacking the FBI and CIA, while hollowing out the State Department and Justice Department - leaving positions unfilled and making direct attacks on leadership.  Congress is an ocean of partisanship with all the old norms of bipartisanship fraying at the edges.  Gerrymandering has effectively ended democracy in some states and the filibuster is being picked apart at the edges and its demise is probably just a matter of time.  Even the Supreme Court is affected.  A popularly elected President was denied his Constitutional duty to select a justice and the selection was made by a President who lost the popular vote and with the support of Senators representing 45% of the US population.  What is the integrity of such institutions?   

They will have to be revived, strengthened, or even recreated, in the latter case better than ever -- and less suited to gaming. 

Quote:Outside the world of government technology is destroying the norms most of us have grown up with.  Retail shopping has changed, financial investing has changed, job availability has changed, and while we have cool gadgets in our pockets, technology has even messed up music.  The world is changing rapidly and we will all adapt or die.  Many Gen Xers are choosing death (no surprise the opioid crisis is killing off middle aged white men).  The jobs of tomorrow will not look like the jobs of yesterday and economic anxiety is crippling communities across the nation.  All while the country is as rich as it has ever been - just in the hands of the few. 

 
We went from the influence of New Deal patterns to the neoliberal faith that nothing mattered except the creation of wealth for the Right People. If we created enough wealth we could buy our way out of any mess. Elites used poverty and the manipulation of shortages as tools of command and control over people who have no say in economic reality. The same elites bought the allegiance of stooge politicians who believed just what their benefactors such as the Koch and Mercer families: that no human suffering can ever be in excess in the name of elite indulgence. Cruelty by political, economic, administrative, military, and (law) enforcement elites do not go away without the eviction of those in power; such cruelty offers its own rewards. People who develop the habit of oppression can no more easily shake it than addicts can shake heroin.  

Quote:An interesting time to visit a site like this.

Technology changes things. It can make old ways of doing things obsolete, and those who fail to adjust in business see reliable profits shrink and then transmute into losses that eventually lead to bankruptcy. The old-fashioned retailing used to depend upon impulse shoppers, the people whose decisions were least rational. (Gee, nice cover art on that album... I think I will buy that). To be sure, the economic scare of the late Double-Zero Decade may have stilled some of the impulse shopping and caused the demise of much brick-and-mortar retailing. This said, people do not have to do impulse shopping to get something on line. They still shop -- but it does not matter that the customer lives in Effingham, Illinois and the item is in St. Louis -- or Seattle. 

On-line shopping oddly looks in many respects like the old practice of mail-order that supposedly went out of vogue.   Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. 

In a way, so functions a cycle. Cycles have a way of creating more stability than do other forms of movement, including exponential, hyperbolic, parabolic, zigzag, random, and even straight line motion. Simple harmonic motion such as that of a pendulum tends to die out. Cycles allow revival instead of dangerous and destructive run-away situations.

[pbrower2a]

(02-02-2020, 01:31 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-02-2020, 11:00 AM)sbarrera Wrote: I also agree with the growing issue of inequality and the attendant economic anxiety.

Inequality is not growing.  It maxed out around 2000, and had remained at a high level since.  Economic anxiety is growing as people realize it's a long term state of affairs.

But history shows that inequality has a cyclical character. It is at its weakest when a community is just getting out of 'survival mode' at the end of a Crisis, remains relatively low in a High that finally sees mom-and-pop businesses start to flourish for the first time and offers plenty of opportunity to young workers, intensifies some as an Awakening brings enterprise and hierarchy under question, and goes out of control in an Unraveling when community is ravaged in an every-man-for-himself mode and those in power abuse power to enrich themselves at others' expense. Finally the system collapses as a speculative boom that did more to devour wealth than to create wealth leads to a financial panic. People already poor have little to lose, but paper profits vanish. What had been wealth commanding the poor is gone. People focus on survival.

Jobs disappear. Relief becomes a necessity. People without work often resort to a method of survival in the sort of investment that people did everything to avoid when easy money was to be had in speculation: low-yield, long-term investment in small businesses. A depression is can make starting a business the least bad of options available. Waiting for paid employment that might never arrive soon enough to preclude hunger? Investment in 'solid' securities when investments are neither solid nor secure?  Cadging off relatives? Not if they too are broke. At least real estate is cheap, machinery and raw materials are available at fire-sale prices without reeking of smoke or exhibiting any char; labor is available cheaply. One's own time is cheap, and such an activity as soliciting customers is less scary than having no customers. All that is scarce is well-heeled customers. It takes years to turn a shoestring business into a profitable concern -- probably through the rest of the Crisis Era.  The realities of poverty force one to be disciplined about spending and be available to do any work necessary for survival. Small businesses become repositories of community.
        

Quote:Tearing down institutions may help, but the problem won't be resolved until the largest private institutions, like Google and Facebook, are broken up or crippled enough to permit competition.  Historically, that has not happened through political action alone.

But what about the internet retailer Amazon.com? It is difficult for a small-business owner in a retail store to compete.

[sbarrera]

(02-02-2020, 01:31 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-02-2020, 11:00 AM)sbarrera Wrote: I also agree with the growing issue of inequality and the attendant economic anxiety.

Inequality is not growing.  It maxed out around 2000, and had remained at a high level since.  Economic anxiety is growing as people realize it's a long term state of affairs.

Hmm...I have seen lots of data showing that inequality is getting worse. But yes, it is also the case that concern about it is growing, whereas it was more accepted in the 3T.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_ine...l_-_v1.png

[David Horn]

(02-02-2020, 01:31 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-02-2020, 11:00 AM)sbarrera Wrote: I also agree with the growing issue of inequality and the attendant economic anxiety.

Inequality is not growing.  It maxed out around 2000, and had remained at a high level since.  Economic anxiety is growing as people realize it's a long term state of affairs.

Tearing down institutions may help, but the problem won't be resolved until the largest private institutions, like Google and Facebook, are broken up or crippled enough to permit competition.  Historically, that has not happened through political action alone.

The real problem has to do with the imbalance of power.  If the corporate world is unrestrained, it will take more and give less.  That's true of earnings, wealth, freedom and just about every other measure.  Power corrupts, and the corporate world has had unprecedented power for a very long time.

Breaking up the tech firms is certainly justified, for any number of reasons, but the basic imbalance has to do with wealth and constraints, or lack of them.

[Warren Dew]

(02-02-2020, 11:56 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(02-02-2020, 01:31 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-02-2020, 11:00 AM)sbarrera Wrote: I also agree with the growing issue of inequality and the attendant economic anxiety.

Inequality is not growing.  It maxed out around 2000, and had remained at a high level since.  Economic anxiety is growing as people realize it's a long term state of affairs.

But history shows that inequality has a cyclical character. It is at its weakest when a community is just getting out of 'survival mode' at the end of a Crisis, remains relatively low in a High that finally sees mom-and-pop businesses start to flourish for the first time and offers plenty of opportunity to young workers, intensifies some as an Awakening brings enterprise and hierarchy under question, and goes out of control in an Unraveling when community is ravaged in an every-man-for-himself mode and those in power abuse power to enrich themselves at others' expense. Finally the system collapses as a speculative boom that did more to devour wealth than to create wealth leads to a financial panic. People already poor have little to lose, but paper profits vanish. What had been wealth commanding the poor is gone. People focus on survival.

You're right about the cyclicality, and your description is within reason for end of the Crisis, the High, and the Awakening.  Inequality does continue to increase during the unraveling, but because it's a result of a competitive free market that makes the poor better off too - just not as fast as the rich - there's little resentment against it.

Before the system collapses, however, there's a crisis period where competition ceases to operate because the biggest players have become big enough to control the markets through oligopoly and monopoly.  That's what happened in the 1850s and 1930s, and that's where we are in now.  Inequality stops growing because the big players can't get any bigger; their markets are saturated.  However, resentment against the high levels of inequality that have built up does start growing because, without competition, the poor have stagnated rather than seeing improvements.

Quote:

Quote:Tearing down institutions may help, but the problem won't be resolved until the largest private institutions, like Google and Facebook, are broken up or crippled enough to permit competition.  Historically, that has not happened through political action alone.

But what about the internet retailer Amazon.com? It is difficult for a small-business owner in a retail store to compete.

Amazon is absolutely part of the problem too; I was just giving examples, but in fact monopolists are starting to dominate everywhere - even outside of tech.

My point is that historically, the institutional changes that happen during the Unraveling and Crisis are not sufficient to break up the monopolies.  It would be great if, say, antitrust lawsuits would break up all the monopolies, but historically, that's not what happens; it takes a war to destroy enough of them to allow the pieces to be picked up.

[Warren Dew]

(02-03-2020, 06:41 AM)sbarrera Wrote: Hmm...I have seen lots of data showing that inequality is getting worse.

Your data is questionable because it misses two critical issues.  First, it doesn't show what's happening for the top 0.01%, or even the top 0.1%, which is where the problems arise.  Second, for the bottom income category, it only accounts for taxable income, which fails to include government transfers, which account for a lot of the disposable income in this category.

However, the effect I'm talking about is visible even in your graphs.  For example, what the first graph shows is that income inequality grew rapidly during the Unraveling, not during the Crisis.  The "top 1%" line levels out around 2005.  Your fourth graph shows the "top 5%" line leveling out around 2001.  I rounded off to 2000, which is where I've seen it in graphs of the top 0.1%, but from a generational standpoint, these dates all mark the same time:  the transition from Unraveling to Crisis.

Your fourth graph also buttresses my argument for what was happening during the unraveling:  while the top income category was gaining more during the unraveling, the bottom income category was also gaining, which is why there wasn't resentment against inequality at the time.

Again, since the beginning of the crisis, there has been little movement in incomes or inequality.  What has happened has been stagnation of incomes at all levels, leading to resentment throughout the society.  Most people don't know enough economics to blame the transition from competitive markets to oligopoly and monopoly markets, so they blame income inequality instead.

[sbarrera]

(02-03-2020, 01:17 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-03-2020, 06:41 AM)sbarrera Wrote: Hmm...I have seen lots of data showing that inequality is getting worse.

Your data is questionable because it misses two critical issues.  First, it doesn't show what's happening for the top 0.01%, or even the top 0.1%, which is where the problems arise.  Second, for the bottom income category, it only accounts for taxable income, which fails to include government transfers, which account for a lot of the disposable income in this category.

However, the effect I'm talking about is visible even in your graphs.  For example, what the first graph shows is that income inequality grew rapidly during the Unraveling, not during the Crisis.  The "top 1%" line levels out around 2005.  Your fourth graph shows the "top 5%" line leveling out around 2001.  I rounded off to 2000, which is where I've seen it in graphs of the top 0.1%, but from a generational standpoint, these dates all mark the same time:  the transition from Unraveling to Crisis.

Your fourth graph also buttresses my argument for what was happening during the unraveling:  while the top income category was gaining more during the unraveling, the bottom income category was also gaining, which is why there wasn't resentment against inequality at the time.

Again, since the beginning of the crisis, there has been little movement in incomes or inequality.  What has happened has been stagnation of incomes at all levels, leading to resentment throughout the society.  Most people don't know enough economics to blame the transition from competitive markets to oligopoly and monopoly markets, so they blame income inequality instead.

I see you points, Warren. And in an era that is turning away from individualism and risk-taking, it will be hard to convince people that monopolists are a problem. Easier to resent the wealthy than to understand how they maintain their wealth. But then why not a wealth tax, as Warren proposes and Piketty recommends?

[pbrower2a]

A Crisis Era begins with many possibilities, many of them horrible. Consider how long an Axis victory seemed inevitable. Consider a world in which the Axis Powers got the A-Bomb. Consider an economic meltdown leading to "world Socialist revolution". One possibility after another becomes impossible, and in the end, the result looks inevitable. For a truly horrible result for America, just go back to the rise of the KKK, the 1915 Klan having many of the characteristics of a fascist movement even before Mussolini called his movement "fascism".

Maybe Hitler could have been stopped...

[Warren Dew]

(02-04-2020, 07:23 AM)sbarrera Wrote: And in an era that is turning away from individualism and risk-taking, it will be hard to convince people that monopolists are a problem. 

That's an interesting observation, and helps explain why crises can't be resolved nonviolently.

Quote:Easier to resent the wealthy than to understand how they maintain their wealth. But then why not a wealth tax, as Warren proposes and Piketty recommends?

In principle, some sort of wealth tax might be a good idea, and might be fairer than an income tax.  However, it can't by itself eliminate the problem of accumulation of wealth without also eliminating the benefits of free market capitalism, since the benefits flow from the desire to grow driving better service to the customer to increase market share.

It also has two other problems.  First, there's the problem that it doesn't really affect the publicly held companies that are the biggest monopolists.  Second, as with the income tax, the billionaires will figure out a way to lobby for benign sounding rules that in fact permit them to get away without paying any significant taxes.  The tax burden will instead fall on people who are affluent, but don't have market power, and aren't actually part of the problem.

I think a better solution would be to modify estate taxes so billionaires couldn't escape them.  In particular, what needs to happen is that "charitable" contributions - which for billionaires mean transferring money to a nonprofit organization that they still control, and thus does nothing to alleviate market power - come out of posttax income, not pretax income.  You pay the estate tax first, then you can donate what's left if you want to.

Removing 50% of large estates and using it as a major source of funding for the government once per generation would likely be sufficient to prevent excessive accumulation of personal wealth. You'd still need action to break up monopolies that are public companies, though.

[David Horn]

(02-05-2020, 10:04 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: In principle, some sort of wealth tax might be a good idea, and might be fairer than an income tax.  However, it can't by itself eliminate the problem of accumulation of wealth without also eliminating the benefits of free market capitalism, since the benefits flow from the desire to grow driving better service to the customer to increase market share.

Didn't you note the problem with monopoly monopsony in an earlier post somewhere? Excessive market power creates nothing and actually extracts far too much. Until that's resolved, worrying about a theoretical impact on competitiveness seems premature at best and naive at worst.

Warren Dew Wrote:It also has two other problems.  First, there's the problem that it doesn't really affect the publicly held companies that are the biggest monopolists.  Second, as with the income tax, the billionaires will figure out a way to lobby for benign sounding rules that in fact permit them to get away without paying any significant taxes.  The tax burden will instead fall on people who are affluent, but don't have market power, and aren't actually part of the problem.

That's a good point, but isn't it a reason to use more than one approach to solve problems. The real problems created by corporations has to do with a near total lack for regulation and oversight. Look at the Tech industry. It's anarchy.

Warren Dew Wrote:I think a better solution would be to modify estate taxes so billionaires couldn't escape them.  In particular, what needs to happen is that "charitable" contributions - which for billionaires mean transferring money to a nonprofit organization that they still control, and thus does nothing to alleviate market power - come out of posttax income, not pretax income.  You pay the estate tax first, then you can donate what's left if you want to.

I agree that wealth should not pass indiscriminately from generation to generation. Look at the Vanderbilts. Cornelius, the source of the family wealth, died in 1877, and left a fortune that still exists in some form to this day. Isn't it about time for that fortune to be taxed away to oblivion? Other than Gloria and her son Anderson Cooper, most of the family still leans on the remnants.

Warren Dew Wrote:Removing 50% of large estates and using it as a major source of funding for the government once per generation would likely be sufficient to prevent excessive accumulation of personal wealth.  You'd still need action to break up monopolies that are public companies, though.

Agreed.

[pbrower2a]

(02-05-2020, 10:04 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-04-2020, 07:23 AM)sbarrera Wrote: And in an era that is turning away from individualism and risk-taking, it will be hard to convince people that monopolists are a problem. 

That's an interesting observation, and helps explain why crises can't be resolved nonviolently.

The political chaos of the middle-to-late 1780's in the new United States  of America was solved with minimal violence. America solved the economic meltdown of 1929-1932 without appreciable violence, and American political life was very placid in the early 1940's.

Quote:

Quote:Easier to resent the wealthy than to understand how they maintain their wealth. But then why not a wealth tax, as Warren proposes and Piketty recommends?

In principle, some sort of wealth tax might be a good idea, and might be fairer than an income tax.  However, it can't by itself eliminate the problem of accumulation of wealth without also eliminating the benefits of free market capitalism, since the benefits flow from the desire to grow driving better service to the customer to increase market share.

The super-rich have more stake in the system than most of us do. When I heard the words "American interests overseas", I recognized that that meant corporate investments by American companies overseas. Neoliberal economics solved the problem of creating wealth. Its fault has been in in the meeting of basic needs and putting talent to use. Neoliberalism implied the use of Big Government to facilitate putting income into the hands of those who were already filthy-rich, supposedly because the welfare of the super-rich eventually trickles down to everyone else in the forms of wages or opportunity. That part did not happen. Neoliberal economics fostered monopoly, disparities of economic welfare at the least between regions, and in the end irresponsible behavior by elites. It has failed at all else.   

Quote:It also has two other problems.  First, there's the problem that it doesn't really affect the publicly held companies that are the biggest monopolists.  Second, as with the income tax, the billionaires will figure out a way to lobby for benign sounding rules that in fact permit them to get away without paying any significant taxes.  The tax burden will instead fall on people who are affluent, but don't have market power, and aren't actually part of the problem.

It is obviously as futile to tax the poor as it is to get blood donations from infants. Note well that monopoly has consequences even worse than high consumer costs. Monopolies create economic inequality; they deny opportunity; they create shortages and deny means of resolving those shortages; they give poor service to customers; they make exports needlessly expensive; they above all corrupt the political system.   

Quote:I think a better solution would be to modify estate taxes so billionaires couldn't escape them.  In particular, what needs to happen is that "charitable" contributions - which for billionaires mean transferring money to a nonprofit organization that they still control, and thus does nothing to alleviate market power - come out of posttax income, not pretax income.  You pay the estate tax first, then you can donate what's left if you want to.

But estate taxes attack the entrenchment of power and wealth. Foundations often serve as a method to ensure a plush life for heirs who would rather have a steady income than a lump sum.  

Quote:Removing 50% of large estates and using it as a major source of funding for the government once per generation would likely be sufficient to prevent excessive accumulation of personal wealth.  You'd still need action to break up monopolies that are public companies, though.

It will happen as a means of meeting post-Crisis obligations.

[Snowflake1996]

The realignment of American politics in 2016-2020 indicates a very strong shift from 3T individualism to 4T collective action against our problems. Trump’s takeover of the GOP shifted the Party to a more collectivist way of thinking compared to Bush and Reagan (clearly defining enemies in the form of the immigrants, foreign trade competition, etc) and the possible takeover of the Democratic Party by Bernie Sanders is definitely a bigger collective shift for liberals.

If Sanders becomes the nominee he will cement his views onto the Party. If he’s elected then expect him to be the gray champion given his robust support among civic millennials.

[David Horn]

(02-08-2020, 02:27 AM)Snowflake1996 Wrote: The realignment of American politics in 2016-2020 indicates a very strong shift from 3T individualism to 4T collective action against our problems. Trump’s takeover of the GOP shifted the Party to a more collectivist way of thinking compared to Bush and Reagan (clearly defining enemies in the form of the immigrants, foreign trade competition, etc) and the possible takeover of the Democratic Party by Bernie Sanders is definitely a bigger collective shift for liberals.

If Sanders becomes the nominee he will cement his views onto the Party. If he’s elected then expect him to be the gray champion given his robust support among civic millennials.

There are two very big 'ifs' there, and neither is assured.  Beyond that, binding his views to the Dems is fine, but how does that translate into policy?  The GOPpers are already pushing (arguably crossing) legal bounds to keep the Dems from being successful, and that will only increase under Sanders.  They have a structural advantage in the Senate that's hard to displace, so it will require killing the filibuster for good when the balance shifts.  Sadly, the balance tend to restore quickly, so Millennials had better be up to the task of shifting power in, what are today, red states, or this strategy goes down in flames very quickly.

[Ghost]

(02-08-2020, 02:27 AM)Snowflake1996 Wrote: The realignment of American politics in 2016-2020 indicates a very strong shift from 3T individualism to 4T collective action against our problems. Trump’s takeover of the GOP shifted the Party to a more collectivist way of thinking compared to Bush and Reagan (clearly defining enemies in the form of the immigrants, foreign trade competition, etc) and the possible takeover of the Democratic Party by Bernie Sanders is definitely a bigger collective shift for liberals.

If Sanders becomes the nominee he will cement his views onto the Party. If he’s elected then expect him to be the gray champion given his robust support among civic millennials.

He has a pretty strong Gen Z/Artist (born 1997-2012) support as well by what I have seen.

[pbrower2a]

(02-08-2020, 02:27 AM)Snowflake1996 Wrote: The realignment of American politics in 2016-2020 indicates a very strong shift from 3T individualism to 4T collective action against our problems. Trump’s takeover of the GOP shifted the Party to a more collectivist way of thinking compared to Bush and Reagan (clearly defining enemies in the form of the immigrants, foreign trade competition, etc) and the possible takeover of the Democratic Party by Bernie Sanders is definitely a bigger collective shift for liberals.

The transition has taken longer than many might have expected -- perhaps because the extreme individualists (as opposed to promoters of individuality) still had the power to buy the political process. Some elites still hold onto the ethos of the slave-master -- that no human suffering can ever be too great so long as it facilitates the power, indulgence, and gain of the elites. Such people bankrolled Tea Party politics, got the support of "thinkers" such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and created a climate in which Donald Trump could win just about as few votes as possible to win the Electoral College. Donald Trump (see also the now-dying Rush Limbaugh) is the definitive expression of such an ethos. 

Even if the economy is not in a tailspin and there is no military debacle, Trump was doing badly in polls despite operating in campaign mode even after being elected. We have yet to see what the post-Trump coalition will be. Trump has likely alienated one once-reliable constituency for the Republican Party: the ones who have national security above all else. He has no reasonable way of winning America's "model minorities" who hold Trump's strident anti-intellectualism in contempt. He has been careful to avoid making promises to Corporate America to eviscerate unions... that would go over well with moneyed elites but they are far from the majority of Americans.  Trump would be facing strikes on a large scale. 

The generational theory explains a big difference between young X and Millennial adults and politics. Generation X was willing to take real hardships in return for promises of plenty in twenty years or so. They took long to realize that poverty for the creation of elite plenty as the measure of prosperity meant little more than their own poverty -- and for their kids. The Millennial Generation has had things rough by the standard of Boom and late-Silent kids ... and knows it. As a Boomer I was able to talk to GI adults about their childhood; unless born to privilege they had hardscrabble lives by standards of my childhood. The Civic childhood may have the blessing of structure and sanity, but nobody says that a Civic childhood is typically one of economic security.    

Quote:If Sanders becomes the nominee he will cement his views onto the Party. If he’s elected then expect him to be the gray champion given his robust support among civic millennials.

I expect a Crisis solution to labor-management strife will be to make the organization of labor unions easy and that union contracts will achieve labor peace in return for fair pay that makes the American dream possible for those who do the real work. Cities once ravaged in de-industrialization (Detroit, Dayton, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Hartford) will need revitalization so that this country is not rich at its coasts (with fiendish housing costs and long commutes) and destitute in most other places.  Good luck on implementing a practical solution that is both effective and just.

This Crisis most likely will burn through alternatives such as "try to make amends with George III", "give slavery a chance to be part of a modern America", or "appease Hitler and hope for the best". Sometimes it takes a Trump to offer one failure after another until what remains is something that fully rejects his nonsense.

[Snowflake1996]

(02-08-2020, 11:02 AM)Ghost Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 02:27 AM)Snowflake1996 Wrote: The realignment of American politics in 2016-2020 indicates a very strong shift from 3T individualism to 4T collective action against our problems. Trump’s takeover of the GOP shifted the Party to a more collectivist way of thinking compared to Bush and Reagan (clearly defining enemies in the form of the immigrants, foreign trade competition, etc) and the possible takeover of the Democratic Party by Bernie Sanders is definitely a bigger collective shift for liberals.

If Sanders becomes the nominee he will cement his views onto the Party. If he’s elected then expect him to be the gray champion given his robust support among civic millennials.

He has a pretty strong Gen Z/Artist (born 1997-2012) support as well by what I have seen.

I thought the generational lines for millennials generally began in the early 80’s and extended roughly 3-5 years before the start of the 4T (so 2002-2005)? I guess there isn’t an agreed upon start of the 4T yet. I think the culture definitely began to shift sometime between the re-election of Bush and Obama’s first election (2004-2008) but the exact dates are fuzzy. 

Bernie is very strong with anyone under the age of 30 today as far as I can tell.

(02-08-2020, 09:50 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 02:27 AM)Snowflake1996 Wrote: The realignment of American politics in 2016-2020 indicates a very strong shift from 3T individualism to 4T collective action against our problems. Trump’s takeover of the GOP shifted the Party to a more collectivist way of thinking compared to Bush and Reagan (clearly defining enemies in the form of the immigrants, foreign trade competition, etc) and the possible takeover of the Democratic Party by Bernie Sanders is definitely a bigger collective shift for liberals.

If Sanders becomes the nominee he will cement his views onto the Party. If he’s elected then expect him to be the gray champion given his robust support among civic millennials.

There are two very big 'ifs' there, and neither is assured.  Beyond that, binding his views to the Dems is fine, but how does that translate into policy?  The GOPpers are already pushing (arguably crossing) legal bounds to keep the Dems from being successful, and that will only increase under Sanders.  They have a structural advantage in the Senate that's hard to displace, so it will require killing the filibuster for good when the balance shifts.  Sadly, the balance tend to restore quickly, so Millennials had better be up to the task of shifting power in, what are today, red states, or this strategy goes down in flames very quickly.

We’ll see in a few weeks if the first premise comes true. Biden appears to be the only serious alternative to Sanders (Buttigieg falls off a cliff once you get to NV/SC due to paltry minority support, Bloomberg is a wild card but I can’t seriously imagine Dems falling in line for him since he’s banking on Super Tuesday) and Biden’s campaign is currently in panic mode and running out of cash. I’d say Sanders is a solid favorite so far but we’ll see what happens in a few weeks times. After the first four contests are decided (IA/MH/NV/SC), we’ll know who the nominee will be (or worse yet if we’re heading towards a contested convention).

Sanders could lose the GE, in which case the grey champion is likely an older Xer the way Obama was and is elected in 2024 running heavily off Sanders’ platform. 2022 would be equivalent to 1930 in terms of Dems gains in the midterms with 2024 being 1932.

[Marypoza]

(02-08-2020, 09:09 PM)Snowflake1996 Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 11:02 AM)Ghost Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 02:27 AM)Snowflake1996 Wrote: The realignment of American politics in 2016-2020 indicates a very strong shift from 3T individualism to 4T collective action against our problems. Trump’s takeover of the GOP shifted the Party to a more collectivist way of thinking compared to Bush and Reagan (clearly defining enemies in the form of the immigrants, foreign trade competition, etc) and the possible takeover of the Democratic Party by Bernie Sanders is definitely a bigger collective shift for liberals.

If Sanders becomes the nominee he will cement his views onto the Party. If he’s elected then expect him to be the gray champion given his robust support among civic millennials.

He has a pretty strong Gen Z/Artist (born 1997-2012) support as well by what I have seen.

I thought the generational lines for millennials generally began in the early 80’s and extended roughly 3-5 years before the start of the 4T (so 2002-2005)? I guess there isn’t an agreed upon start of the 4T yet. I think the culture definitely began to shift sometime between the re-election of Bush and Obama’s first election (2004-2008) but the exact dates are fuzzy. 

Bernie is very strong with anyone under the age of 30 today as far as I can tell.

(02-08-2020, 09:50 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 02:27 AM)Snowflake1996 Wrote: The realignment of American politics in 2016-2020 indicates a very strong shift from 3T individualism to 4T collective action against our problems. Trump’s takeover of the GOP shifted the Party to a more collectivist way of thinking compared to Bush and Reagan (clearly defining enemies in the form of the immigrants, foreign trade competition, etc) and the possible takeover of the Democratic Party by Bernie Sanders is definitely a bigger collective shift for liberals.

If Sanders becomes the nominee he will cement his views onto the Party. If he’s elected then expect him to be the gray champion given his robust support among civic millennials.

There are two very big 'ifs' there, and neither is assured.  Beyond that, binding his views to the Dems is fine, but how does that translate into policy?  The GOPpers are already pushing (arguably crossing) legal bounds to keep the Dems from being successful, and that will only increase under Sanders.  They have a structural advantage in the Senate that's hard to displace, so it will require killing the filibuster for good when the balance shifts.  Sadly, the balance tend to restore quickly, so Millennials had better be up to the task of shifting power in, what are today, red states, or this strategy goes down in flames very quickly.

We’ll see in a few weeks if the first premise comes true. Biden appears to be the only serious alternative to Sanders (Buttigieg falls off a cliff once you get to NV/SC due to paltry minority support, Bloomberg is a wild card but I can’t seriously imagine Dems falling in line for him since he’s banking on Super Tuesday) and Biden’s campaign is currently in panic mode and running out of cash. I’d say Sanders is a solid favorite so far but we’ll see what happens in a few weeks times. After the first four contests are decided (IA/MH/NV/SC), we’ll know who the nominee will be (or worse yet if we’re heading towards a contested convention).

Sanders could lose the GE, in which case the grey champion is likely an older Xer the way Obama was and is elected in 2024 running heavily off Sanders’ platform. 2022 would be equivalent to 1930 in terms of Dems gains in the midterms with 2024 being 1932.

-- Bernie can still be a grey champion w/out being Prez. Benjamin Franklin was never Prez.. Bernie's platform is inspiring ppl & contributing 2 a regeneracy. 

The 4T started some time after 2012. My homeboy Dennis was a Berniecrat b4 Bernie bcame relevant He tried running. 4 Prez on a Bernie platform in 2004 & 2008 & got nowhere. John Edwards also tried running on a modified Bernie platform in 2008 with no success. The Dems were successful in getting an empty suit on the WH that year however, & again in 2012. This is bcuz we were still in a 3T then. But by 2016 the ppl were ready 4 the Dennis/John/Bernie message. So l would say the 4T started sometime btween 2012 & 2015, when Bernie bcame relevant