Grey Champions and the Election of 2016

[Ragnarök_62]

(07-24-2016, 01:20 AM)taramarie Wrote: Exactly, so we know what needs to be addressed, time to start that revolution and not wish to fast forward to better times. We have to do the leg work.

1. I certainly have no monopoly on "how to fix things". So what else should be in the agenda so to speak?
2. Revolutions can be messy affairs. I'll be doing the less messy one by voting for Stein. Note the word , "for".
3. Of course, stuff is messed up, which is where the preference of fast forward comes in. I know it can't be done in reality, though I am sure that the system has to crash because it's just not sustainable. The reset can come in several forms.
a. Economic: As declining real wages proceeds, a point is reached where globalization collapses because the demand deficit starts feeding back into profits. As profits fall, you get more layoffs. I live and work with the destitute, lower working class, and working class. They are my co-workers and neighbors. Some buy stuff at thrift shops , some at Wally World, but few at J C Penny's. They don't buy new cars, but rather junkers so they can get to work.
The only demand I haven't seen collapse yet is Ishits. I think if they get some health problem, the Ishit goes out the window by necessity.  I still have clothes that are 8 years old. When I run out of not worn out shirts, I'll replace them with stuff from a thrift store.
b. Environmental stress. This one's easy. It's 39 degrees out today which is hot. I do think we need to manage our water better. Things are pretty much OK where I live since we have plenty of water to draw upon. We shouldn't go off and waste it though...

So if one is just a prole like me, it's just a matter of muddling through. Just stuff like growing  stuff and knowing your co-workers and neighbors. I can't be a mover and shaker being semi retired and a minimum  wage worker.
Knowing one's limitations is of course very important. Big shotism does not work.

[Mikebert]

(07-27-2016, 11:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The Grey Champion is by definition neither a huckster nor a brigand, this doubly disqualifies Drumpf.

Meanwhile, Hillary R. Clinton presents a plausible GC. She has her faults (just like FDR did) and is corrupt. But she is not an agent of a hostile foreign power. She will do much good and the bad she might do is not enough to make me avoid her.

Therefore, I, with a degree of reservation, will pull the D lever in November.

Grey champion is not a single person.  The term refers to prophets who play important roles in a 4T.  Bill & Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (boundaries can be redrawn to include him as they were for FDR), Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders (ditto) and others may end up playing GC roles.  The determination will be made by future historians.

Sam Adams was the quintessential GC.  He was a master political manipulator, skills Trump has demonstrated so far.

[Mikebert]

If one defines a critical election as the start of a string of 3 or more presidential terms by the same party, there have been six such elections since the rise of the modern party system: 1828, 1860, 1896, 1920, 1932, 1980. Five out of six have fallen within a social moment turning (i.e. 2T or 4T).  The probability of this being chance is about 11%.  Using this correlation, I predicted a Democratic victory in 2016 years ago. This would help confirm 2008 as being part of a 4T. Using the mechanism of generational imprinting I formulated a generational model that forecasts social moments. This model predicts that start of a 4T around 2003.  My earlier work using a correlation between Kondratieff signposts and turnings had implied the start of the 4T was in the 2000-2008 period.  Taken together this all implies that if the S&H cycle is valid, a 4T began not later than 2008 and quite possibly before, but not earlier than 2000.
 
I am working on a hypothesis that the turnaround in inequality last cycle reflected a crisis in capitalism over 1907-1941 caused by high inequality. It is happening again, with a new episode beginning around 2006. It is rare that history aligns to give you an opportunity to make an explicit (relatively) short term prediction. This is one of those times.  The capitalist crisis hypothesis (CCH) predicts a 10000+ drop in the Dow from its peak before the beginning of the next economic expansion. If this fails to happen CCH is rejected.
 
CCH also predicts another financial crisis during the next recession or the one after it.  If this fails to happen, CCH is rejected. CHH can be combined with the S&H cycle to produce a very specific prediction that can be tested. If CCH is valid this means we need another panic by ca. 2028.  This would begin real action on the 4T, which would likely take a couple of presidential terms, so a 4T extending to the mid 2030's would be expected. This would make the 4T 25-35 years long, which defies the normal length of modern turnings, particularly if you reject the idea of the civil war anomaly. Thus, I think the S&H cycle mandates that the financial crisis must happen at the earlier time—in the next recession.
 
That is, if both CCH and S&H are valid, we must see a 10000+ point drop in the Dow and another financial crisis in President Hillary Clinton's first term. The stakes are huge. If she finds a way to restore some semblance of prosperity, the GOP will be out of the picture for a decade or more, during which Democrats play the major GC roles.  If not economic collapse will end the 4T and introduce an austere 1T over which Republicans will rule.*
 
The latter outcome is favored (538 estimates a 65% probability).  The better Democrats do in this election the better their chances for an outcome favorable to Democrats.
 
*This statement would seem partisan.  Why can’t the Republicans fix the economy? The reason is the core of CCH.  If CCH is valid then they cannot, their operating paradigm (i.e what makes them Republican) lacks the necessary policies.  If CCH is invalid, then this is not true of course, but then if CCH is invalid there won’t be a financial crisis for them to worry about in the first place and so the question is moot.

[radind]

(05-07-2016, 10:27 AM)Danilynn Wrote:

(05-05-2016, 06:57 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: As the first vote, I not only think that Trump is the GC, but I will also be voting for him.  Granted since Shillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee I'd vote for a potted plant if the GOP rant that too.

this. a million times, this!

In my opinion, Clinton will be the worst choice for the USA. If they would both step aside, then I would go third party.

[Ragnarök_62]

Mikebert Wrote:My earlier work using a correlation between Kondratieff signposts and turnings had implied the start of the 4T was in the 2000-2008 period.  Taken together this all implies that if the S&H cycle is valid, a 4T began not later than 2008 and quite possibly before, but not earlier than 2000.
 
I am working on a hypothesis that the turnaround in inequality last cycle reflected a crisis in capitalism over 1907-1941 caused by high inequality. It is happening again, with a new episode beginning around 2006. It is rare that history aligns to give you an opportunity to make an explicit (relatively) short term prediction. This is one of those times.  The capitalist crisis hypothesis (CCH) predicts a 10000+ drop in the Dow from its peak before the beginning of the next economic expansion. If this fails to happen CCH is rejected.
 
CCH also predicts another financial crisis during the next recession or the one after it.

OK, is there any correlation between CCH and Elliot wave theory ? Another question would be is if any indicator is of use do to the massive FED intervention in the markets? It seems to me that interest rate repression has caused a lot of risk on behavior in the markets.

[Eric the Green]

(08-13-2016, 12:04 PM)radind Wrote: In my opinion, Clinton will be the worst choice for the USA. If they would both step aside, then I would go third party.

I don't think there's a right-to-life party running now; sorry!

[radind]

(08-13-2016, 06:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-13-2016, 12:04 PM)radind Wrote: In my opinion, Clinton will be the worst choice for the USA. If they would both step aside, then I would go third party.

I don't think there's a right-to-life party running now; sorry!

No matter. I will be voting against Clinton.

[Mikebert]

The central idea of CCH is shown by this figure:
 
Shown is a measure of economic inequality and a measure of capital productivity: per capita GDP (GDPpc) divided by R. R is sort of a real equity or book value.  During "normal" times (when GDPpc is around 40) P/R works well for valuation as do similar measures like Shiller P/E or Tobin's q.  During these special times (like now) when capital productivity is depressed, to obtain a good measure of valuation it is necessary to correct for profit market as I did here. Basically I take raw P/R and multiply by 42/ capital productivity:
 
corrected P/R = raw P/R * 42 R /GDPpc = 42 * P/GDPpc
 
This expression is analogous to the ratio of total GDP to total market capitalization. Fund manager Jon Hussman notes this same thing:
Though it’s not widely recognized, measures such as the ratio of market capitalization/nominal GDP and the S&P 500 price/revenue ratio are actually better correlated with actual subsequent total market returns than price/operating earnings ratios, the Fed model, and even the raw Shiller P/E (though the Shiller P/E does quite well once one adjusts for the embedded profit margin).
 
What Hussman and I are getting at is most market observers (including the Fed) don't see the bubble in stocks because according to conventional valuation measures like P/E (especially when adjusted for the very low interest rates) do not show evidence of overvaluation. What few notice is this was true in 1929.  The market was NOT extremely overvalued in 1929 by conventional measures.  But based on what happened after, it sure was.  When you use the adjusted P/R it shows up as the highest valuation in history up to that time (only 2000 surpasses it).  Today is #3, but we are still going up.
 
Even Hussman is unconcerned about what is doing because he sees a 40% drop, based on using the entire dataset for reference.  In my analysis I assume that we are still in a secular bear market (i.e. we be 4T) and so we need to restrict our comparisons to previous secular bear markets. This indicates a larger drop on the order of 55%.  The only two declines of this size or greater (1929 & 2008) were both associated with financial crisis. Looking at the larger picture five of the ten greatest declines has panics. So there is a 50-100% chance of another financial panic.  But since we are 4T, it will be 100%.
The Fed is out of ammunition.  Any ameliorative measure from this crisis will have to come from the Republican Congress in service to a Democratic president whom they want to see fail.  They have every incentive to let the economy collapse. Now the last time we had a massive stock market drop and panic with a passive government, this is exactly what happened.
 
When a capitalist economy simply stops working and the primary capital market (i.e. the center of a capitalist) ceases to function in a rational manner, you have a crisis in capitalism.  Businessmen will start to question what they believe about the way things work. They will also start to fear the people who have shown a rising taste for radical or populist measures on both the left and right.  A critical mass may come to see Clinton as their last best hope, much as they did

[Mikebert]

(08-13-2016, 04:43 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: OK, is there any correlation between CCH and Elliot wave theory ? Another question would be is if any indicator is of use do to the massive FED intervention in the markets? It seems to me that interest rate repression has caused a lot of risk on behavior in the markets.

No correlation between Elliot and what I am talking about.  Of course low interest rates have encouraged asset prices to rise.  That is their intent, to increase investment.  In an era of low opportunity (i.e. demand) investors will buy existing assets.  But as Hussman points out low interest rates simply mask crappy investments with a sheen of respectability.  Or as Bob Bronson put it, turd polishing.

[Mikebert]

How the CCH and S&H fits in is CCH is one of the two mechanisms by which one secular cycle transitions into another.  To see this, look at the Anglo-American secular cycle turning points: Viking Invasion 865-878, Norman Invasion 1066-1071, Wars of the Roses 1455-1485, English+Glorious Revolutions (1642-1689), American Revolution & America's founding (1775-1789), Civil War and Reconstruction (1860-1877).  Everyone of these was achieved through war: civil war, external invasion or a combination of both.  There is just one turning point that was achieved without a war.  That is the one Turchin identifies as around 1930. The CCH posits a mechanism for achieving a secular cycle turnaround without a war.  It is based on what happened over 1907-1941.  A new episode of capitalist crisis began in 2006.  

The ends of the secular cycle transitions are all 4Ts.  In agrarian times, secular cycles spanned 2-4 saecula (average 3). The driver for these cycles was population growth, which ran around 1.5% in the absence of restrictions. In modern times the driver is economic inequality which reflects the different between the returns to capital and the returns to labor (wage growth), which run about 4.5%. Thus, modern secular cycles should run about 3 times faster than agrarian cycles, or about 1 saeculum. Thus the modern secular cycle corresponds to the saeculum. S&H gives another way to track secular cycles, and vice versa.  That means if CCH is the mechanism that turns around economic inequality and so starts a new cycle, it is also the mechanism that forms to core of the 4T process.

Some here talk about the possibility of civil war.  This is still one option.  The other is CCH. There may be more, but I don't know about them.  Anyways the cause of the capitalist crisis is high inequality.  If big business and the rich do not accept confiscatory tax rates, the economy will keep trying to collapse every business cycle until it succeeds.  The first time in 2000-2002 the Fed handled easily by blowing up a counter bubble in real estate.  The second time in 2007-2009 the Fed had a much harder time since there was no large undamaged asset class to blow up, but they prevented collapse.  Will they succeed a third time?

If not then Business is going to have to ally with Clinton against the Republicans in Congress. If they don't the economy collapses, many of them go bankrupt.  True Clinton and the Democratic party will have been defeated, and Republicans will now rule over the smoking ruins.  But is smoking ruins what Business wants just to keep taxes low?  If Business won't support Capitalism, who will?

[Kinser79]

(07-27-2016, 11:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The Grey Champion is by definition neither a huckster nor a brigand, this doubly disqualifies Drumpf.

This assumes that a "Grey Champion" is a single person, of which I'm not convinced. I've posted before as to why I think the title can, and is only applied to someone after the fact. Even so, you probably want to reread S&H since they pointed out Hitler as Germany's last GC, and he was at least a brigand, and probably a huckster at the same time.

Quote:Meanwhile, Hillary R. Clinton presents a plausible GC. She has her faults (just like FDR did) and is corrupt. But she is not an agent of a hostile foreign power. She will do much good and the bad she might do is not enough to make me avoid her.

Here in lays the problem. First you are assuming that the GC is a single person--which quite honestly not even S&H has been able to show outside of hindsight. Second, her faults are numerous, gross corruption, probable incompetence, more than a few rumors as to her health (IE being physically incapable of being president--remember being the POTUS is a mental job so FDR could do it from a wheelchair) all of that makes me question her fitness to be POTUS and the corruption and incompetence issues existed in 2008 (the reason why I went for Kucinich in the primaries and eventually voted for Obama twice). Third, HRC has a record in Washington dating back to the 1970s, for what good she may have done, the clear bads she has done have far outweighed any goods that may be attributed to her. Fourth, there is no evidence that Trump or any other candidate is the agent of a foreign power. Given the fact that the MSM is clearly in HRC's back pocket were there such evidence they would be shouting it from the roof tops.

Over all with HRC there simply isn't enough "good" there to make me hold my nose and vote for her. Trump on the other hand is something completely different. In any event his rhetoric speaks of weakening US imperialism and from my perspective that is a good thing. Anything that weakens imperialism by its nature must be good for the working class.

[Kinser79]

(08-13-2016, 09:14 PM)radind Wrote:

(08-13-2016, 06:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-13-2016, 12:04 PM)radind Wrote: In my opinion, Clinton will be the worst choice for the USA. If they would both step aside, then I would go third party.

I don't think there's a right-to-life party running now; sorry!

No matter. I will be voting against Clinton.

Then as a consequence you must vote for Trump, voting for anyone besides him may "feel good" but only serves the interests of Clinton due to the electoral college.

[Einzige]

I'm shocked - shocked, I tell you - that the resident special snowflake homosexual Kinser '79 jumped on the Trump Train.

It isn't a coincidence that this edgelord began his posting career as a Marxist-Leninist before appropriating the herd-conformity of the alt-right. It's endlessly fascinating to watch a black queer cuck himself out to white conservatives. (Observe the intense homoeroticism inherent in his use of the term "Daddy" to describe Trump.)

[pbrower2a]

Rather crude language, einzige... please don't make the same mistake. You were enjoyable before you went too far.

[pbrower2a]

(08-24-2016, 12:52 AM)taramarie Wrote: Wow that is messed up. I may not agree with Kinser at times but show some respect. Keep it up and i will report you.

Mr. Unique got evicted from the old T4T forums for such language.

[Kinser79]

(08-23-2016, 02:30 AM)Einzige Wrote: I'm shocked - shocked, I tell you - that the resident special snowflake homosexual Kinser '79 jumped on the Trump Train.

It isn't a coincidence that this edgelord began his posting career as a Marxist-Leninist before appropriating the herd-conformity of the alt-right. It's endlessly fascinating to watch a black queer cuck himself out to white conservatives. (Observe the intense homoeroticism inherent in his use of the term "Daddy" to describe Trump.)

You shouldn't be. Shillary is repugnant for many reasons.

As for Marxism-Leninism the problem is that the matieral conditions required for it have passed away with late stage capitalism. As for Calling Daddy, well Daddy...you might want to take that up with Milo.

Also being a fag doesn't denote snowflake status. I suggest going to your local university if you wish to observe some real snowflakes.

[Kinser79]

(08-23-2016, 10:53 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Using Nazi code words.

I rather like the word cuck. The concept predates National Socialism by several centuries actually. But then again I suppose that since Nazis use words any word could be considered a code word.

[noway2]

(11-10-2016, 07:12 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I rather like the word cuck.  The concept predates National Socialism by several centuries actually.  But then again I suppose that since Nazis use words any word could be considered a code word.

I don't consider it a code word as I am seeing it used in common speech these days outside of the "alt right" spehere.  Yes, it did originate with the white national socialists as a short form of "cuckservative" as a portmanteau of cuckold and conservative and is used as a strong pejorative for the more common term "RINO" meaning a so called conservative who apparently sides with liberals.

[pbrower2a]

He is a Grey Chempion only if one of two things apply:

1. The Grey Champion can be evil. Stalin? Trotsky? Antonescu? If President Trump transforms (with the aid of a compliant Congress which serves lobbyists instead of constituents)... Good Lord!

2. Donald Trump transmutes into a reasonable, decent, humane fellow.

Making a vegetarian out of a cat looks easier.

I see him more as an antithesis of a Grey Champion.

The Grey Champion will more likely be his successor, even if that is someone who achieves Admiral Yamamoto's dream of dictating terms of peace in the White House. Or sets up shop in the Fairmount Hotel in San Francisco after getting American officials to sign an armistice on a battleship in San Francisco Bay in a manner parallel to Douglas MacArthur in Japan.

How does "President Amy Klobuchar" sound?

[Eric the Green]

Klobuchar doesn't have the numbers on my system, so FWIW I say no to Amy.

Trump is the gray villain. A champion will be needed to defeat him. Bernie?