(05-27-2016, 01:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Apparently this astrologer thought he noticed a powerful pattern involving Venus that was 89% correct. But it didn't take me long to verify that this is not the case.

(05-27-2016, 02:44 PM)naf140230 Wrote:

(05-27-2016, 01:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Apparently this astrologer thought he noticed a powerful pattern involving Venus that was 89% correct. But it didn't take me long to verify that this is not the case.

What's wrong with it?

(05-27-2016, 04:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-27-2016, 02:44 PM)naf140230 Wrote:

(05-27-2016, 01:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Apparently this astrologer thought he noticed a powerful pattern involving Venus that was 89% correct. But it didn't take me long to verify that this is not the case.

What's wrong with it?

He said that the incumbent party in power wins when Venus is in Libra, and loses when Venus is in Sagittarius, but talked about exceptions that might apply in 2016. He listed 1932 and 1980 as exceptions.

But there are more exceptions than that: 1944, 1936, 1928 the challenging party did not win as the pattern predicts. Nor in 1912, 1904, etc. The fortunes would have to shift every 8 years for the Venus pattern to hold. This has been a recent pattern (with Carter not being able to keep his party in power being the exception) since the 1940s, but not before then. Generally though, this pattern since 1948 favors Trump anyway; not Hillary.

As I see it, when one party attains a degree of dominance, it can stay in power more than 8 years at a time. That was the case in the years after the previous 2 4Ts when the party that took us through the crisis stayed in power. There is good reason to believe that the current course which the Republican Party is on, dooms it to fail as we go through and beyond this 4T too, in which its ideas are contrary to the needs of the time, and to the demographic patterns that impact it.

(05-29-2016, 03:14 PM)naf140230 Wrote: There is the possibility that the Libertarian Party might challenge both the Democrats and the Republicans. What do you think?

(05-28-2016, 10:31 PM)naf140230 Wrote:

(05-27-2016, 04:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-27-2016, 02:44 PM)naf140230 Wrote:

(05-27-2016, 01:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Apparently this astrologer thought he noticed a powerful pattern involving Venus that was 89% correct. But it didn't take me long to verify that this is not the case.

What's wrong with it?

He said that the incumbent party in power wins when Venus is in Libra, and loses when Venus is in Sagittarius, but talked about exceptions that might apply in 2016. He listed 1932 and 1980 as exceptions.

But there are more exceptions than that: 1944, 1936, 1928 the challenging party did not win as the pattern predicts. Nor in 1912, 1904, etc. The fortunes would have to shift every 8 years for the Venus pattern to hold. This has been a recent pattern (with Carter not being able to keep his party in power being the exception) since the 1940s, but not before then. Generally though, this pattern since 1948 favors Trump anyway; not Hillary.

As I see it, when one party attains a degree of dominance, it can stay in power more than 8 years at a time. That was the case in the years after the previous 2 4Ts when the party that took us through the crisis stayed in power. There is good reason to believe that the current course which the Republican Party is on, dooms it to fail as we go through and beyond this 4T too, in which its ideas are contrary to the needs of the time, and to the demographic patterns that impact it.

Your astrology says that Hillary Clinton will win despite not having as strong a horoscope score as Donald Trump. Doesn't it?

(06-01-2016, 01:59 PM)naf140230 Wrote: Did you hear about Trump University? It has been exposed as a fraud. What is the astrology for that?

(06-02-2016, 01:06 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-01-2016, 01:59 PM)naf140230 Wrote: Did you hear about Trump University? It has been exposed as a fraud. What is the astrology for that?

I don't know. I doubt I will look into it.

Donald Trump has an amazing and interesting chart. Fortunately it is not as formidable now in my new system as it appeared to be before. Both he and Hillary have weaker charts (although still positive) than any candidates who have actually been elected president since Herbert Hoover, although LBJ was a somewhat weaker candidate too. That is quite fitting, since that's what the public perceives. 

Trump's own chart would be the best thing to look at to interpret his university. The main item in his chart is so obvious that it scarcely needs mentioning again: Mars in Leo rising. Not everyone with this position is a liar and a fraud by any means. A lot depends on what one does with one's life and one's destiny; all is not pre-ordained. But Mars rising is often belligerent to some degree, and Leo is a sign that can signify pride and arrogant boasting. It is also quite a self-confident position and does have leadership skill. But overpromising people, gambling, boasting, can be expected from someone with Mars in Leo right on his ascendant.

Hillary Clinton also has Mars in Leo (as I do myself), and Al Gore does too. Trump's position right on the ascendant stands out though.

His Venus-Saturn conjunction in Cancer is interesting too. It's often a positive aspect in itself; George Washington is the pre-eminent example, though it was in a different sign. At its best, it shows integrity and endurance. In Cancer though, these two planets together might symbolize his acquisitiveness and disregard for others. This conjunction can be cold and mean. In Cancer, it is oversensitive and protective. Sign of home, family and nationalism, it of course symbolizes his nativism and desire to build walls and impose tariffs. It aligns with Mercury in the US horoscope, so it touches a basic instinct indicated by the US chart for the American people.

Quote:The all-important new moon before election day indicates that the party in power will win again. So this sets up an interesting situation, in which the two main indicators might conflict. If Bernie Sanders is nominated, the new moon plus the fact that his score beats all candidates indicates victory, despite the odds against someone on the Left. But Hillary Clinton's score indicates that she is a weaker candidate than Sanders, even considering her strong qualifications and mainstream appeal. She can still beat Donald Trump, if his own statements and behavior have damaged his chances. I predict Hillary will win, because of the new moon before election, and because Clinton's own Jupiter and 2 other planets rising give her a virtual score almost even with Trump's. We will probably have seen how it all turned out and how my predictions fared for 2016 before you read this chapter.

(06-08-2016, 06:44 PM)naf140230 Wrote:

Quote:The all-important new moon before election day indicates that the party in power will win again. So this sets up an interesting situation, in which the two main indicators might conflict. If Bernie Sanders is nominated, the new moon plus the fact that his score beats all candidates indicates victory, despite the odds against someone on the Left. But Hillary Clinton's score indicates that she is a weaker candidate than Sanders, even considering her strong qualifications and mainstream appeal. She can still beat Donald Trump, if his own statements and behavior have damaged his chances. I predict Hillary will win, because of the new moon before election, and because Clinton's own Jupiter and 2 other planets rising give her a virtual score almost even with Trump's. We will probably have seen how it all turned out and how my predictions fared for 2016 before you read this chapter.

Trump's recent statements about a judge have damaged his chances.

(06-08-2016, 11:19 PM)gabrielle Wrote:

(06-08-2016, 06:44 PM)naf140230 Wrote:

Quote:The all-important new moon before election day indicates that the party in power will win again. So this sets up an interesting situation, in which the two main indicators might conflict. If Bernie Sanders is nominated, the new moon plus the fact that his score beats all candidates indicates victory, despite the odds against someone on the Left. But Hillary Clinton's score indicates that she is a weaker candidate than Sanders, even considering her strong qualifications and mainstream appeal. She can still beat Donald Trump, if his own statements and behavior have damaged his chances. I predict Hillary will win, because of the new moon before election, and because Clinton's own Jupiter and 2 other planets rising give her a virtual score almost even with Trump's. We will probably have seen how it all turned out and how my predictions fared for 2016 before you read this chapter.

Trump's recent statements about a judge have damaged his chances.

Except that in the past, every time he said something "damaging to his chances" he kept getting stronger, and ended up the last one standing.  We'll see.

(06-08-2016, 11:19 PM)gabrielle Wrote:

(06-08-2016, 06:44 PM)naf140230 Wrote:

Quote:The all-important new moon before election day indicates that the party in power will win again. So this sets up an interesting situation, in which the two main indicators might conflict. If Bernie Sanders is nominated, the new moon plus the fact that his score beats all candidates indicates victory, despite the odds against someone on the Left. But Hillary Clinton's score indicates that she is a weaker candidate than Sanders, even considering her strong qualifications and mainstream appeal. She can still beat Donald Trump, if his own statements and behavior have damaged his chances. I predict Hillary will win, because of the new moon before election, and because Clinton's own Jupiter and 2 other planets rising give her a virtual score almost even with Trump's. We will probably have seen how it all turned out and how my predictions fared for 2016 before you read this chapter.

Trump's recent statements about a judge have damaged his chances.

Except that in the past, every time he said something "damaging to his chances" he kept getting stronger, and ended up the last one standing.  We'll see.

(06-14-2016, 12:10 AM)taramarie Wrote: How could they not know how he functions? Even the kiwi knows and i am not even from America or in that country. Guess when you are  viewing it from the outside bias does not blind you.

(06-14-2016, 01:42 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 12:10 AM)taramarie Wrote: How could they not know how he functions? Even the kiwi knows and i am not even from America or in that country. Guess when you are  viewing it from the outside bias does not blind you.

Wishful thinking on the part of many.  Consider Eric the (insults redacted), an extreme case admittedly, but dreadfully common among the Boomers.  Fourth turnings are the cause of systems and ideas that are well past their expiration date.

Consider this article by Paul Graham, an Xer a bit older than I am, and then think of how Trump with his "Make America Great" is in many ways promising to bring that mid-century world back.  Yet Trump is also a rebellion against the status quo of the last forty years.  Definitely a contradiction but that is but one of many contradictions that will die in fourth turnings.

Quote:It wasn't just as consumers that the big companies made us similar. They did as employers too. Within companies there were powerful forces pushing people toward a single model of how to look and act. IBM was particularly notorious for this, but they were only a little more extreme than other big companies. And the models of how to look and act varied little between companies. Meaning everyone within this world was expected to seem more or less the same. And not just those in the corporate world, but also everyone who aspired to it—which in the middle of the 20th century meant most people who weren't already in it. For most of the 20th century, working-class people tried hard to look middle class. You can see it in old photos. Few adults aspired to look dangerous in 1950.

But the rise of national corporations didn't just compress us culturally. It compressed us economically too, and on both ends.

Along with giant national corporations, we got giant national labor unions. And in the mid 20th century the corporations cut deals with the unions where they paid over market price for labor. Partly because the unions were monopolies. [10] Partly because, as components of oligopolies themselves, the corporations knew they could safely pass the cost on to their customers, because their competitors would have to as well. And partly because in mid-century most of the giant companies were still focused on finding new ways to milk economies of scale. Just as startups rightly pay AWS a premium over the cost of running their own servers so they can focus on growth, many of the big national corporations were willing to pay a premium for labor. [11]

Quote:As well as pushing incomes up from the bottom, by overpaying unions, the big companies of the 20th century also pushed incomes down at the top, by underpaying their top management. Economist J. K. Galbraith wrote in 1967 that "There are few corporations in which it would be suggested that executive salaries are at a maximum." [12]

To some extent this was an illusion. Much of the de facto pay of executives never showed up on their income tax returns, because it took the form of perks. The higher the rate of income tax, the more pressure there was to pay employees upstream of it. (In the UK, where taxes were even higher than in the US, companies would even pay their kids' private school tuitions.) One of the most valuable things the big companies of the mid 20th century gave their employees was job security, and this too didn't show up in tax returns or income statistics. So the nature of employment in these organizations tended to yield falsely low numbers about economic inequality. But even accounting for that, the big companies paid their best people less than market price. There was no market; the expectation was that you'd work for the same company for decades if not your whole career. [13]

Your work was so illiquid there was little chance of getting market price. But that same illiquidity also encouraged you not to seek it. If the company promised to employ you till you retired and give you a pension afterward, you didn't want to extract as much from it this year as you could. You needed to take care of the company so it could take care of you. Especially when you'd been working with the same group of people for decades. If you tried to squeeze the company for more money, you were squeezing the organization that was going to take care of them. Plus if you didn't put the company first you wouldn't be promoted, and if you couldn't switch ladders, promotion on this one was the only way up. [14]

To someone who'd spent several formative years in the armed forces, this situation didn't seem as strange as it does to us now. From their point of view, as big company executives, they were high-ranking officers. They got paid a lot more than privates. They got to have expense account lunches at the best restaurants and fly around on the company's Gulfstreams. It probably didn't occur to most of them to ask if they were being paid market price.

Quote:And in the 20th century there were more and more college graduates. They increased from about 2% of the population in 1900 to about 25% in 2000. In the middle of the century our two big forces intersect, in the form of the GI Bill, which sent 2.2 million World War II veterans to college. Few thought of it in these terms, but the result of making college the canonical path for the ambitious was a world in which it was socially acceptable to work for Henry Ford, but not to be Henry Ford. [16]

I remember this world well. I came of age just as it was starting to break up. In my childhood it was still dominant. Not quite so dominant as it had been. We could see from old TV shows and yearbooks and the way adults acted that people in the 1950s and 60s had been even more conformist than us. The mid-century model was already starting to get old. But that was not how we saw it at the time. We would at most have said that one could be a bit more daring in 1975 than 1965. And indeed, things hadn't changed much yet.

But change was coming soon. And when the Duplo economy started to disintegrate, it disintegrated in several different ways at once. Vertically integrated companies literally dis-integrated because it was more efficient to. Incumbents faced new competitors as (a) markets went global and (b) technical innovation started to trump economies of scale, turning size from an asset into a liability. Smaller companies were increasingly able to survive as formerly narrow channels to consumers broadened. Markets themselves started to change faster, as whole new categories of products appeared. And last but not least, the federal government, which had previously smiled upon J. P. Morgan's world as the natural state of things, began to realize it wasn't the last word after all.

Quote:If we think 20th century cohesion disappeared because of few policy tweaks, we'll be deluded into thinking we can get it back (minus the bad parts, somehow) with a few countertweaks. And then we'll waste our time trying to eliminate fragmentation, when we'd be better off thinking about how to mitigate its consequences.

naf140230 Wrote:I was wondering. What will be the result of Sanders endorsing Clinton, astrologically speaking?