Culture Wars Era - is it moving into its final phase?

[David Horn]

(01-26-2017, 10:05 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 09:39 PM)David Horn Wrote: Prevent what, exactly? 

Prevent the billionaires from protecting their money against taxation, of course.  If we really wanted to tax the rich, we would focus on the rich that hold most of the money and pay the least in taxes, which is the billionaires.  Anyone who ignores the billionaires does not really want to tax the rich, no matter what rhetoric they use.

The Billionaires fall into several categories.  There are the entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and Howard Schultz, The financial types like the entire C Suite at Goldman Sachs, the rent seekers who benefit almost exclusively from beneficial relationships with government, and the heirs.. 

• I have more than a little respect for the first group.  They earned it the hard way, and deserve their wealth.  They still need to pay their fair share of taxes, but let's not demonize them. 
  
• The second group consists of money manipulators and gamblers who get lucky or they don't.  I don't see them as valuable to the system, and would tax the bejesus out of them.  Right now, they are the ones who get the carried interest tax rate because they generate carried interest. 
  
• The third group seems to be the one that irks you the most.  These people run K Street (and its equivalents in the states) and use their influence to obtain things, like lucrative government contracts.  They also like to establish monopolies or duopolies if they can, so they can milk the system with less effort.  The biggest duopolies going today are Verizon and AT&T in wireless, and AT&T (soon) and Comcast in broadband.  The biggest monopolies are the utility companies.  All of these guys are protected, and the protection needs to be removed to see, as Warren Buffett put it, who is swimming naked.
  
• Which brings us to the ones born on third base who tell you how they hit a home run.  Guys like The Donald.  Isn't it interesting that they can always justify leaving everything to the next generation, because it preserves family businesses.  The Steinbrenner brothers god the NY Yankees handed to them with $0.00 inheritance tax.  Thank GWB for that one. 
  

So out of that list, who has gotten special treatment by the Democrats and who has gotten it from Republicans?  I'll save you time researching the second question: they all have benefitted from GOP policies and direct help of one form or another.  Look into the Dems.

[David Horn]

(01-26-2017, 10:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 09:48 PM)David Horn Wrote: Government outlays always rise to offset at least some of the general economic decline during a recession.  Some of it is automatic, like unemployment insurance, and some is legislated.  Add to that, the decline in revenue due to lower incomes and reduced economic activity, and you get huge deficits.  That's a feature of proper government, not a bug.

While automatic spending increases were a small part of it, the main driver of the increased deficits was ill considered pork barrel spending initiatives that delayed the recovery for years by displacing more productive private sector spending.

Crowding out, which is your argument, has a tell tale sign: high and rising interest rates.  If money is in short supply, then the demand triggers rate hikes.  In other words, if you want my money, you'll have to pay me for it!

That didn't happen.  It's only starting to happen now, and it's still mild by historical standards.

[Warren Dew]

(01-27-2017, 08:21 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 09:48 PM)David Horn Wrote: Government outlays always rise to offset at least some of the general economic decline during a recession.  Some of it is automatic, like unemployment insurance, and some is legislated.  Add to that, the decline in revenue due to lower incomes and reduced economic activity, and you get huge deficits.  That's a feature of proper government, not a bug.

While automatic spending increases were a small part of it, the main driver of the increased deficits was ill considered pork barrel spending initiatives that delayed the recovery for years by displacing more productive private sector spending.

Crowding out, which is your argument, has a tell tale sign: high and rising interest rates.  If money is in short supply, then the demand triggers rate hikes.  In other words, if you want my money, you'll have to pay me for it!

That didn't happen.  It's only starting to happen now, and it's still mild by historical standards.

Have you ever considered checking for actual facts before making your false assertions?  Or is using facts too much of an alternative method for progressives?



Rising interest rates, exactly when you would expect from the private sector being crowded out by deficits from the bailouts, "stimulus" bill, and other ill considered spending of the time.

[Eric the Green]

The prime rate and the interest received on bonds and money market funds is still near zero after 8 years. Of course that does not stop the corporate credit sharks from gouging the people.

[Warren Dew]

(01-27-2017, 03:49 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 01:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The prime rate and the interest received on bonds and money market funds is still near zero after 8 years. Of course that does not stop the corporate credit sharks from gouging the people.

Another thing. After the crash of '08 regulations came into play forcing more conservative reserve requirements on banks backing the cards. The way they helped allocate into the reserves was by increasing the spread between the prime and credit card interest.

True.  But the flip side of that is that the money was forced into supposedly zero risk reserves, namely US government obligations.  Seen another way, it was a way to force banks to fund the deficit at below market interest rates.

[pbrower2a]

(01-27-2017, 01:25 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 08:21 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 09:48 PM)David Horn Wrote: Government outlays always rise to offset at least some of the general economic decline during a recession.  Some of it is automatic, like unemployment insurance, and some is legislated.  Add to that, the decline in revenue due to lower incomes and reduced economic activity, and you get huge deficits.  That's a feature of proper government, not a bug.

While automatic spending increases were a small part of it, the main driver of the increased deficits was ill considered pork barrel spending initiatives that delayed the recovery for years by displacing more productive private sector spending.

Crowding out, which is your argument, has a tell tale sign: high and rising interest rates.  If money is in short supply, then the demand triggers rate hikes.  In other words, if you want my money, you'll have to pay me for it!

That didn't happen.  It's only starting to happen now, and it's still mild by historical standards.

Have you ever considered checking for actual facts before making your false assertions?  Or is using facts too much of an alternative method for progressives?



Rising interest rates, exactly when you would expect from the private sector being crowded out by deficits from the bailouts, "stimulus" bill, and other ill considered spending of the time.

Note also the consolidation of the banking industry into entities best described as "too big to fail" and the selling-off of credit-card units of banks. The disappearance of competition tends to raise consumer prices for anything -- even credit. Also, consider that credit defaults had made consumer credit appear much riskier by early 2011 than in mid-2007. People with good credit may have been scaling back consumer purchases in 2008 and 2009 and been leery of taking out consumer debt to live some "Good Life".

I am tempted to believe that President Trump would love a debt-fueled boom in consumer spending... but if there is any one clear lesson of history, people are averse to replication of follies of a recent time. The best thing for America is that no boom of mindless spending with the dubious aid of predatory lending is possible because people well remember the boom-and-bust Double Zero Decade that went badly in the end. Such just might spare us a 1930*-style or 2008-style crash.

*The real crash happened in 1930. There was a partial recovery of stock prices in the winter of 1929-1930, with the stock market prices  having fallen slightly more than 40% in value and going back to about 20% less than the market value of the peak.



(the case for the Nobel Prize in Economics for former-President Barack Obama)

[sbarrera]

(01-26-2017, 09:00 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 06:26 PM)sbarrera Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 03:44 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The key for the Left (and for that matter, the Center, and even, the Center-Right) to win again is to be unafraid to embrace the Hard Hats. Learn their world. Live it. Learn why they have the mindset they have. In a small way, become a bit of a Hard Hat.

Does that mean a bit of casual racism, sexism, and homophobia? That will be a hard sell for a lot of people.

No but it does mean sensitivity about things like economic displacement due to globalization and automation, and, rapid social change due to multiculturalism. Up until now, the program of modernity has taken an attitude of "change is here, deal with it all you Neanderthal  rough necks!" Serious investment needs to be made into mitigation. There may be actual areas of worsened quality of life that a white (or even, assimilated PoC) working stiff has experienced due to the aforementioned factors. There needs to be a middle ground between acquiescence to regressive or conformist existence and radical upending constant change. One of the worst things is social engineering and border line brain washing in the schools. There are ways to maintain continuous improvement vis a vis human rights without completely trashing the existing or traditional culture.

An appeal to compassion, then. I hope that the anti-Trumpers (for want of a better term) can find it in their hearts to care about the pro-Trumpers. Otherwise the country could tear itself apart.

[David Horn]

(01-27-2017, 01:25 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 08:21 AM)David Horn Wrote: Crowding out, which is your argument, has a tell tale sign: high and rising interest rates.  If money is in short supply, then the demand triggers rate hikes.  In other words, if you want my money, you'll have to pay me for it!

That didn't happen.  It's only starting to happen now, and it's still mild by historical standards.

Have you ever considered checking for actual facts before making your false assertions?  Or is using facts too much of an alternative method for progressives?



Rising interest rates, exactly when you would expect from the private sector being crowded out by deficits from the bailouts, "stimulus" bill, and other ill considered spending of the time.

Unless business borrowing consists primarily of credit cards, this is not important.  In fact, higher credit card rates are based solely on the demand side, and tend to show that the economy is reasonably healthy.  For business borrowing, the Federal Funds rate is a better measure, because it marks the underlying cost to banks of money they lend. 



It's basically flat at near 0% ever since the Great Recession began in earnest.  It's still below 1%.

[David Horn]

(01-27-2017, 05:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 03:49 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 01:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The prime rate and the interest received on bonds and money market funds is still near zero after 8 years. Of course that does not stop the corporate credit sharks from gouging the people.

Another thing. After the crash of '08 regulations came into play forcing more conservative reserve requirements on banks backing the cards. The way they helped allocate into the reserves was by increasing the spread between the prime and credit card interest.

True.  But the flip side of that is that the money was forced into supposedly zero risk reserves, namely US government obligations.  Seen another way, it was a way to force banks to fund the deficit at below market interest rates.

After the 2007 meltdown, the Fed pushed money into the banks to make them reliably liquid. This continued throughout the QE period, with banks getting stuffed full of cash. They decided that the amount of interest they pay (a pittance) can be more than offset by returning the money to the Fed, and placed in interest bearing accounts.  So basically, the Fed is giving the banks an unearned income stream.  You may wish to consider that as a topic for complaint rather than forced purchase of government obligations.

It may be that no one wanted to borrow all that money, but the increased credit requirements argue against that.  In short, the banks used the easy button rather than actually taking typical business risks.

[Warren Dew]

(01-29-2017, 10:48 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 01:25 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 08:21 AM)David Horn Wrote: Crowding out, which is your argument, has a tell tale sign: high and rising interest rates.  If money is in short supply, then the demand triggers rate hikes.  In other words, if you want my money, you'll have to pay me for it!

That didn't happen.  It's only starting to happen now, and it's still mild by historical standards.

Have you ever considered checking for actual facts before making your false assertions?  Or is using facts too much of an alternative method for progressives?



Rising interest rates, exactly when you would expect from the private sector being crowded out by deficits from the bailouts, "stimulus" bill, and other ill considered spending of the time.

Unless business borrowing consists primarily of credit cards, this is not important.  In fact, higher credit card rates are based solely on the demand side, and tend to show that the economy is reasonably healthy.  For business borrowing, the Federal Funds rate is a better measure, because it marks the underlying cost to banks of money they lend.

Small businesses actually do use credit cards heavily.  More importantly, though, consumer borrowing matters too:  higher deficits pushing credit card interest rates higher results in less consumer spending, a classic example of government spending crowding out private spending.

The federal funds rate is a poorer measure since, as X_4AD_84 pointed out, it was artificially depressed during this period due to capital regulations.  Those low rates were only available to the government.

[Warren Dew]

(01-29-2017, 10:57 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 05:36 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 03:49 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 01:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The prime rate and the interest received on bonds and money market funds is still near zero after 8 years. Of course that does not stop the corporate credit sharks from gouging the people.

Another thing. After the crash of '08 regulations came into play forcing more conservative reserve requirements on banks backing the cards. The way they helped allocate into the reserves was by increasing the spread between the prime and credit card interest.

True.  But the flip side of that is that the money was forced into supposedly zero risk reserves, namely US government obligations.  Seen another way, it was a way to force banks to fund the deficit at below market interest rates.

After the 2007 meltdown, the Fed pushed money into the banks to make them reliably liquid. This continued throughout the QE period, with banks getting stuffed full of cash. They decided that the amount of interest they pay (a pittance) can be more than offset by returning the money to the Fed, and placed in interest bearing accounts.  So basically, the Fed is giving the banks an unearned income stream.  You may wish to consider that as a topic for complaint rather than forced purchase of government obligations.

Actually, I already complained about that, too, five years ago as it was happening:

http://psychohist.livejournal.com/50763.html

at the same time that the fed did the first round of quantitative easing, they also started paying interest on reserves, including excess reserves.... Basically the banks can sit on the cash and make some money perfectly safely, without having to worry about making loans that might go bad.


... Before doing more of the same and hoping for different results, maybe the fed needs to cut back or eliminate that risk free interest that they're giving the banks.

Of course, that would mean Bernanke would be making his friends in the New York banks do their jobs and figure out how to make loans to people likely to repay them while avoiding loans to people who are likely to default. Why do that, when he can dump more money into the system and keep his banking pals on the government dole, instead.

[Tim Randal Walker]

(01-16-2017, 02:27 PM)David Horn Wrote: I don't see the 4T resolving in normal fashion, with a near stand-off between the two visions for Future America being proposed models but not actual solutions.

  The 1T will arrive, and a truce, of sorts, will quell any further action by either side.  The 1T will muddle along, with the two sides cloistered in their urban and rural settings, neither able to bring the other along, but both able to survive in their enclaves.

The next 2T will drag all this out into the public square, and a resolution will finally emerge.  If the call to the barricades is triggered by an environmental catastrophe, the resolution is predictable.  Otherwise, its up for grabs.

During the next 1T the Boomers will be dying off, leaving pragmatic Xers in charge.

If we are very lucky, the next 1T will resemble a blank turning. It certainly won't be a "High". 

 More like the Gilded Age if we are unlucky.

According to the double rhythm, the next 2T should be of the Apollo type.

[Eric the Green]

(02-25-2019, 12:12 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote:

(01-16-2017, 02:27 PM)David Horn Wrote: I don't see the 4T resolving in normal fashion, with a near stand-off between the two visions for Future America being proposed models but not actual solutions.

  The 1T will arrive, and a truce, of sorts, will quell any further action by either side.  The 1T will muddle along, with the two sides cloistered in their urban and rural settings, neither able to bring the other along, but both able to survive in their enclaves.

The next 2T will drag all this out into the public square, and a resolution will finally emerge.  If the call to the barricades is triggered by an environmental catastrophe, the resolution is predictable.  Otherwise, its up for grabs.

During the next 1T the Boomers will be dying off, leaving pragmatic Xers in charge.

If we are very lucky, the next 1T will resemble a blank turning. It certainly won't be a "High". 

 More like the Gilded Age if we are unlucky.

According to the double rhythm, the next 2T should be of the Apollo type.

I generally agree. I think according to the pattern that the next 1T in the USA won't have as much consensus as the last one, and will have more activism, much like the gilded age era. The next Apollo-type 2T will nevertheless be substantially like the previous one in its concerns and activities, since it will fulfill the previous one in the 1960s-70s. It will not diverge from all the previous recent Awakenings and emphasize only a return to traditional lifestyles and religions, without the more-esoteric and new age ways. It will continue the new age awakenings. However, it will have more perspective, and the Awakening will have more intellectual elements (especially in the 2050s) and better behavior, and will be more peaceful than the last one. It could revive a post-impressionist and art nouveau style from the 1890s.

[pbrower2a]

One Boomer coalition will prevail -- but will be non-Boomers who decide which Boomer coalition will prevail. Which Boomer dreams can serve X pragmatism and Millennial desires for equity and community?

Good question. In the last 4T the leading Missionary coalition consisted of conservationists, feminists, agrarian reformers, organized labor, and rising minorities (most obviously Jews, but to some extent Catholics). Donald Trump seems to have behind him a coalition of a near-antithesis to such a coalition.

[pbrower2a]

One Boomer coalition will prevail -- but will be non-Boomers who decide which Boomer coalition will prevail. Which Boomer dreams can serve X pragmatism and Millennial desires for equity and community?

Good question. In the last 4T the leading Missionary coalition consisted of conservationists, feminists, agrarian reformers, organized labor, and rising minorities (most obviously Jews, but to some extent Catholics). Donald Trump seems to have behind him a coalition of a near-antithesis to such a coalition.

[David Horn]

(02-25-2019, 12:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-25-2019, 12:12 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote:

(01-16-2017, 02:27 PM)David Horn Wrote: I don't see the 4T resolving in normal fashion, with a near stand-off between the two visions for Future America being proposed models but not actual solutions.

  The 1T will arrive, and a truce, of sorts, will quell any further action by either side.  The 1T will muddle along, with the two sides cloistered in their urban and rural settings, neither able to bring the other along, but both able to survive in their enclaves.

The next 2T will drag all this out into the public square, and a resolution will finally emerge.  If the call to the barricades is triggered by an environmental catastrophe, the resolution is predictable.  Otherwise, its up for grabs.

During the next 1T the Boomers will be dying off, leaving pragmatic Xers in charge.

If we are very lucky, the next 1T will resemble a blank turning. It certainly won't be a "High". 

More like the Gilded Age if we are unlucky.

According to the double rhythm, the next 2T should be of the Apollo type.

I generally agree. I think according to the pattern that the next 1T in the USA won't have as much consensus as the last one, and will have more activism, much like the gilded age era. The next Apollo-type 2T will nevertheless be substantially like the previous one in its concerns and activities, since it will fulfill the previous one in the 1960s-70s. It will not diverge from all the previous recent Awakenings and emphasize only a return to traditional lifestyles and religions, without the more-esoteric and new age ways. It will continue the new age awakenings. However, it will have more perspective, and the Awakening will have more intellectual elements (especially in the 2050s) and better behavior, and will be more peaceful than the last one. It could revive a post-impressionist and art nouveau style from the 1890s.

I don't see another spiritual awakening any time soon -- certainly not in the next 2T. The hard work of this now ending saeculum was focused on resolving social and cultural issues, and not well. Let's say the efforts were misdirected or merely squandered. Yes, personal enlightenment has advanced among the minority open to it, but most minds remain closed, so the results are spotty at best.

So here we are with hard problems to solve, and more than a little urgency to get started. We need a nuts-and-bolts era, but that may have to wait for some of the cultural anxiety to be resolved, because we aren't united in seeing the problems yet. That leaves the 2T to be in full Apollonian mode: all logic and problem solving. I only hope that the problems are solved in non-judgmental ways, though I suspect that won't happen this time any more than it did in the previous saeculum.

[Tim Randal Walker]

The Missionary Awakening followed the Civil War and the Gilded Age. As I understand it, that 2T included a particularly strong emphasis on worldly affairs; and did not explore or trail blaze the spiritual to anywhere near the level as the Transcendental Awakening.

The Missionary Awakening wasn't entirely dead spiritually-the Missionaries were associated with traditional religion.

[David Horn]

(02-26-2019, 04:11 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: The Missionary Awakening followed the Civil War and the Gilded Age.  As I understand it, that 2T included a particularly strong emphasis on worldly affairs; and did not explore or trail blaze the spiritual to anywhere near the level as the Transcendental Awakening.

The Missionary Awakening wasn't entirely dead spiritually-the Missionaries were associated with traditional religion.

Your last sentence makes a good point.  The Missionaries DID focus on religion, but they defined as "doing good deeds" rather than "having an abiding faith".  They are the two poles of the religious life that pull at one another, with the "faith" group fully in command today.  Personally, I'll take the Salvation Army over the Southern Baptist Convention any day.  Simply believing is no justification for otherwise bad behavior, but the faith-community assumes it's the one and only ticket to heaven.  They're wrong!

[Bill the Piper]

(02-27-2019, 11:45 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-26-2019, 04:11 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: The Missionary Awakening followed the Civil War and the Gilded Age.  As I understand it, that 2T included a particularly strong emphasis on worldly affairs; and did not explore or trail blaze the spiritual to anywhere near the level as the Transcendental Awakening.

The Missionary Awakening wasn't entirely dead spiritually-the Missionaries were associated with traditional religion.

Your last sentence makes a good point.  The Missionaries DID focus on religion, but they defined as "doing good deeds" rather than "having an abiding faith".  They are the two poles of the religious life that pull at one another, with the "faith" group fully in command today.  Personally, I'll take the Salvation Army over the Southern Baptist Convention any day.  Simply believing is no justification for otherwise bad behavior, but the faith-community assumes it's the one and only ticket to heaven.  They're wrong!

Would this be a difference between Dionysian and Apollonian prophets? Missionaries were Apollonian and focused on ethics/morality. Transcendentals and Boomers were Dionysian and focused on having a relationship with God.

Also, back to the OP: I think the culture wars are resolved. Homosexuality and marijuana are now widely accepted all over the Anglosphere, while hard drugs are now fortunately out of fashion. The sex-positive movement has mostly died out, feminists are now firmly against porn and prostitution, and their arguments are sometimes similar to the old Christian Right. Millennials generally don't tolerate cheating on your husband or wife, although they delay marriage to give themselves time for some sexual self-discovery. Weird Satanic and Hindu-inspired cults of the last 3T are also mostly gone.


The current clash of ideologies is tribalism vs cosmopolitanism rather than Rajneesh vs Jesus.

[Eric the Green]

(02-26-2019, 03:16 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-25-2019, 12:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-25-2019, 12:12 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote:

(01-16-2017, 02:27 PM)David Horn Wrote: I don't see the 4T resolving in normal fashion, with a near stand-off between the two visions for Future America being proposed models but not actual solutions.

  The 1T will arrive, and a truce, of sorts, will quell any further action by either side.  The 1T will muddle along, with the two sides cloistered in their urban and rural settings, neither able to bring the other along, but both able to survive in their enclaves.

The next 2T will drag all this out into the public square, and a resolution will finally emerge.  If the call to the barricades is triggered by an environmental catastrophe, the resolution is predictable.  Otherwise, its up for grabs.

During the next 1T the Boomers will be dying off, leaving pragmatic Xers in charge.

If we are very lucky, the next 1T will resemble a blank turning. It certainly won't be a "High". 

More like the Gilded Age if we are unlucky.

According to the double rhythm, the next 2T should be of the Apollo type.

I generally agree. I think according to the pattern that the next 1T in the USA won't have as much consensus as the last one, and will have more activism, much like the gilded age era. The next Apollo-type 2T will nevertheless be substantially like the previous one in its concerns and activities, since it will fulfill the previous one in the 1960s-70s. It will not diverge from all the previous recent Awakenings and emphasize only a return to traditional lifestyles and religions, without the more-esoteric and new age ways. It will continue the new age awakenings. However, it will have more perspective, and the Awakening will have more intellectual elements (especially in the 2050s) and better behavior, and will be more peaceful than the last one. It could revive a post-impressionist and art nouveau style from the 1890s.

I don't see another spiritual awakening any time soon -- certainly not in the next 2T.  The hard work of this now ending saeculum was focused on resolving social and cultural issues, and not well.  Let's say the efforts were misdirected or merely squandered.  Yes, personal enlightenment has advanced among the minority open to it, but most minds remain closed, so the results are spotty at best.  

So here we are with hard problems to solve, and more than a little urgency to get started.  We need a nuts-and-bolts era, but that may have to wait for some of the cultural anxiety to be resolved, because we aren't united in seeing the problems yet.  That leaves the 2T to be in full Apollonian mode: all logic and problem solving.  I only hope that the problems are solved in non-judgmental ways, though I suspect that won't happen this time any more than it did in the previous saeculum.

Oh, there will be a big spiritual awakening in the 2040s. And the late 2040s will definitely fulfill the 1960s goals; that's inherent in the cycles. The next Awakening will not be appreciably different from the last one. I guess we may not be here to verify this, but we can count on it. The extreme degree to which the last awakening has already been forgotten and ignored or put down, guarantees this decisively. People can only go so long without reconnecting with Spirit, which is our life. Even materialist, tech-obsessed Americans need to do this, so they do.

Of course severe secular problems remain today, and a lot will be done in the next 10 years. Nuts and bolts issues are for THIS era, the 4T and 1T; we are already IN the era we "need." If we DON'T get to it in the 2020s, we will really be in bad shape, and national decline afterward will be precipitous indeed. It will be too late, and in that case I agree, we won't have an Awakening, but we won't be solving problems EITHER. It will be too late; the reds will be in control and we'll just decline and fade away. Other nations will quickly surpass the USA, and our saeculum may end. There's a danger of this happening in each 4T. It's a life and death struggle for the national survival. Get ready!

But to me it looks good, actually. The aspects look good in the 2020s, and in our equivalent 1850s-style Piscean muddling 2010s today, it only LOOKS like darkness before the action starts. But I am confident of my long-standing, very-definitive prediction that action will get rolling and the momentum of nuts and bolts work will be strong, and will continue even into the 1T. And secular problems and solutions DO happen in Awakenings too, and in fact almost ALL the time (except maybe in 3Ts), since ours is a materialist, outer-focused country. It's only Awakenings that stop in the USA (not elsewhere); that in fact is our particular achilles heel. In a healthy society, Awakening and the spiritual side of life also persists. In ours, it doesn't; and we just get lost and further alienated. Meanwhile, during Awakenings, a lot of the continuous American problem solving is in the form of the new social movements that arise. Of course, our particular social problems have brought a need for continual work. 3Ts provide for a lot of stagnation.

The progress in the 2020s will be in spite of the lack of agreement on our red/blue culture war and on our neo-liberal/neo-socialist splits, and the left-over systemic power of the reds will mean conflict. Lack of agreement will not stop progress; it will just mean that we'll have to fight for it against the new "reds" like Classic Xer and Galen, just like we fought against the grays in the 1860s. The fundies will be getting out their pistols and AR-15s when the left takes over-- the fundie-reddies afraid that they will have their guns taken away and their taxes raised. Stupidity in America is endemic.

The up side of the double rhythm is that Neptune will still be in Aries for much of the 1T, through the 2030s, or as you say, we'll be in Apollo mode. In this equivalent of the gilded age coming up, there will be a bit more problem solving than in the 1950s on the domestic side. We will carry through with continuing the work, which is the usual 1T pattern, but with a bit more controversy and less consensus (like after the civil war) in this Apollo rhythm, than in the collegial Libra 1950s American decade. 

Of course, problems remained left over after the crisis THAT time TOO: but they were a foreign crisis (the Cold War). That's the double rhythm again: more domestic = Dionysian/atonement for our sins. Foreign =- Apollo/more problem solving. It's not either/or, but a general trend. 

And by the way, strong Awakenings definitely happen every saeculum, whether Apollonian or Dionysian. There was much re-connection with God going on in the late 1880s-through 1900s Awakening, not just moral preaching and social gospel. We just forget. We need Awakenings, so they come! And before then, in 1Ts, the momentum from problem solving through conflict becomes solution building. In the Gilded Age, the hatred aroused by the civil war persisted and stopped some progress. Let's hope the current civil war remains cold or just warm, and enough agreement happens in the 2030s so progress can continue in a less radical way in the 1T style.