Is Trump embracing aggressive withdrawal?

[Eric the Green]

(02-28-2017, 12:48 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

Eric The Green Wrote:It seems very likely to me that the Repugs will put in their trumped-up privatization plan.

Republicans might not bitch about VAT, but that's because what Republicans don't bitch about, hurts everyone except their rich clientele. But, talk it up to your Republican congresspeople and see what happens.

  Well, perhaps , except the Big Health Insurance would hate it.   They'd be gone since I rather doubt anyone would buy their defective product with universal Medicare.

Quote:Xenophobia is beneath the Norse mythological realm you dwell in. And anything else you dwell in. It just doesn't connect with the truth. No, Americans don't do those jobs, and they won't pay more for food. They will just buy imported food and our farmers will go belly up.

I said illegal. What don't you get here? That of course means I don't care one whit about legal immigration that's economically sane and my personal target of stalling any population growth in the US, because we have some control over that.  The world?  Nothing we can do though Planned Parenthood could. So yeah, I'm one with my Norse pagan realm.  I'll tell you this.  There ain't no be fruitful and multiply in Norse paganism.  You see, I recall ZPG from the Awakening.

Yes, but what you don't get, or don't agree with me about, is that illegals don't hurt jobs and employment. It's irrelevant.

Quote:

Quote:The minimum wage only goes up when Democrats raise it.

I thought unions at least helped...

Yes they do help raise wages, but only Democrats can raise the minimum wage.

Quote:

Quote:I also think shorter working hours for the same work is part of the mix of improving wages and employment. Well, an idea for when the Democrats get back in.

Yup. 40 hour workweeks and no ZPG are both so 20th century.

Yes, and Let's hope the 21st century begins again in 2020, or at least 2022/2024. The 21st century was aborted on Dec.12, 2000.

I think I'll change Trump's slogan to "Let's Begin our Century Again!"

[Mikebert]

(02-27-2017, 10:34 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: I disagree, China's agenda-setting was very much in evidence in the 80s and 90s, that's how they became what they are today.  I am not sure that supplementary wars are a requirement of the same way that macrodecision phases or k-waves are.  In so far as there was one, I'd say the function (determining who would be the future challenger) was fulfilled by the conclusion of the Cold War.  It is worthwhile to point out that the army peak occurred around that time.  The land-based power lost (or rather, gave up).  There was actually a spike of violence during that period worldwide.

The relevant parts of the cycle are in the k-waves, and the macrodecisions.  The 19th K-wave is already here, and has been for a while.  This is not the delegitimation phase for us, but the deconcentration.

No you are making the error of interpreting the present cycle to fit the model instead of the data.  Army share rises during the deconcentration/coalition-building  phase as the challenger gears up for the subsequent showdown.

The Portuguese played a major role in two K-waves. The first (Guinea Gold) took off after 1475, the last peaked around 1555. The Dutch played a major role in three K-waves, the first (Baltic shipping) took off after 1550, the last peaked around 1725.  The British played a major role in five K-waves.  The first, Indian textiles, took off around 1660, the last peaked around 1908. America has also played a major role in three waves. The first, American industrial, took off after 1860 and the last will peak in the future.

In the past cycles the future leaders had their first K-wave participation 20-54 years (avg 33±15) before the start of the MD phase.  In no way can China be considered a major player in the IT K-wave that got underway after 1980.  They will likely play a major role in the next K-wave which could get started in the next decade.    Adding 33±15 to this takeoff would suggest that start of an MD phase mid-century.

I am not claiming a start then.  I am simply making the point that the K-waves support your contention to a lesser degree that the geopolitical considerations.

[Mikebert]

(02-27-2017, 10:34 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: I disagree, China's agenda-setting was very much in evidence in the 80s and 90s, that's how they became what they are today.  I am not sure that supplementary wars are a requirement of the same way that macrodecision phases or k-waves are.  In so far as there was one, I'd say the function (determining who would be the future challenger) was fulfilled by the conclusion of the Cold War.  It is worthwhile to point out that the army peak occurred around that time.  The land-based power lost (or rather, gave up).  There was actually a spike of violence during that period worldwide.

The relevant parts of the cycle are in the k-waves, and the macrodecisions.  The 19th K-wave is already here, and has been for a while.  This is not the delegitimation phase for us, but the deconcentration.

 Army share rises during the deconcentration/coalition-building  phase as the challenger gears up for the subsequent showdown.

The Portuguese played a major role in two K-waves. The first (Guinea Gold) took off after 1475, the last peaked around 1555. The Dutch played a major role in three K-waves, the first (Baltic shipping) took off after 1550, the last peaked around 1725.  The British played a major role in five K-waves.  The first, Indian textiles, took off around 1660, the last peaked around 1908. America has also played a major role in three waves. The first, American industrial, took off after 1860 and the last will peak in the future.

In the past cycles the future leaders had their first K-wave participation 20-54 years (avg 33±15) before the start of the MD phase.  In no way can China be considered a major player in the IT K-wave that got underway after 1980.  They will likely play a major role in the next K-wave which could get started in the next decade.    Adding 33±15 to this takeoff would suggest that start of an MD phase mid-century.

I am not claiming a start then.  I am simply making the point that the K-waves support your contention to a lesser degree that the geopolitical considerations.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:In no way can China be considered a major player in the IT K-wave that got underway after 1980. 

No?  China has no leading software companies?  No presence in the semiconductor/consumer electronics industries?

Do tell.

[Mikebert]

(02-28-2017, 04:39 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:In no way can China be considered a major player in the IT K-wave that got underway after 1980. 

No?  China has no leading software companies?  No presence in the semiconductor/consumer electronics industries?

Do tell.

Did they have them in the 1980's?  According to M&T what sets up a country for future leader role is beginning a new K-wave. The issue is pioneering a new K-wave, not participation later on.  Britain got credit for pioneering the industrial revolution through their textile innovations in the 1760's through 1780's. The fact that Americans stole the technologies and transferred them here in the 1790's did not make America a candidate for the hegemon in the 18th century.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:According to M&T what sets up a country for future leader role is beginning a new K-wave.

Source?

Quote:The fact that Americans stole the technologies and transferred them here in the 1790's did not make America a candidate for the hegemon in the 18th century.

Considering that the MD was in the 1790s that would be rather difficult.  With a projected MD phase in the 2020-2030 range, and the speed with which they, and the industry as a whole, have grown, I don't think that's a rule.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:According to M&T what sets up a country for future leader role is beginning a new K-wave.

So, I have gone back through the Google Books version of LSWP, and I have found no reference to this.  I have found numerous references to the idea that what sets up a country for a future leader role is the growth captured by particular countries during a k-wave, as said growth is rarely evenly distributed.

Here we have, on pages 70-71:

Quote:A central premise of the leading sector concept is that growth occurs unevenly and at different rates within (national and global) economies.  Some types of activities or sectors expand steadily, but very slowly.  There will always be some sectors that are stagnating due to lags in technological change or, more simply, changes in demand.  Significant rates of economic growth, however, are initially traceable to a few activities that are so transformed by innovation that they experience abrupt and rapid expansion.  These sectors lead their respective economies as vanguards of high growth.  New ways of doing things are introduced. High profits are realized to the extent that leading sectors are monopolized by a few firms or a single economy; money for investment becomes less scarce; new industries and jobs are created; transportation costs may be reduced; and new markets are created.  In sum, leading sectors act as the spark plugs of economic growth.

The key concept, as you can see, is growth.  Growth is what leads to national power, not bragging rights. 

We also have the example of the Netherlands capturing the economic growth from Spain's silver flows from the New World.

We have the example of the British sugar boom in the Caribbean, hotly contested by the French, emerging as a result of the disruption of the Brazilian sugar supplies due to Dutch-Portuguese fighting.

We also have the mention, on page 97, that it was in fact Britain that had the initial lead in both steel and chemicals, before being displaced by the US (remember that the Bessemer process was invented in Britain) in the last quarter of the 19th century.  Germany was strongly competitive in many of these fields during the late 19th-early 20th century as well.

[Mikebert]

(02-28-2017, 05:38 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:According to M&T what sets up a country for future leader role is beginning a new K-wave.

So, I have gone back through the Google Books version of LSWP, and I have found no reference to this.  I have found numerous references to the idea that what sets up a country for a future leader role is the growth captured by particular countries during a k-wave, as said growth is rarely evenly distributed.

Here we have, on pages 70-71:

Quote:A central premise of the leading sector concept is that growth occurs unevenly and at different rates within (national and global) economies.  Some types of activities or sectors expand steadily, but very slowly.  There will always be some sectors that are stagnating due to lags in technological change or, more simply, changes in demand.  Significant rates of economic growth, however, are initially traceable to a few activities that are so transformed by innovation that they experience abrupt and rapid expansion.  These sectors lead their respective economies as vanguards of high growth.  New ways of doing things are introduced. High profits are realized to the extent that leading sectors are monopolized by a few firms or a single economy; money for investment becomes less scarce; new industries and jobs are created; transportation costs may be reduced; and new markets are created.  In sum, leading sectors act as the spark plugs of economic growth.

The key concept, as you can see, is growth.  Growth is what leads to national power, not bragging rights. 

We also have the example of the Netherlands capturing the economic growth from Spain's silver flows from the New World.

We have the example of the British sugar boom in the Caribbean, hotly contested by the French, emerging as a result of the disruption of the Brazilian sugar supplies due to Dutch-Portuguese fighting.

We also have the mention, on page 97, that it was in fact Britain that had the initial lead in both steel and chemicals, before being displaced by the US (remember that the Bessemer process was invented in Britain) in the last quarter of the 19th century.  Germany was strongly competitive in many of these fields during the late 19th-early 20th century as well.

Yes, it is growth.  Today growth can be directly assessed using GDP, one doesn't not need to assess leading sectors.  You still can and will get similar results. When M&T did their work GDP data only went back to the 19th century for some powers and much later for others.  To use economics in their model they had to work with proxies for trends in GDP growth like leading sectors. 

M&T linked the various waves to major industries connected with rising hegemons.  For example they have a pepper leading sector dominanted by the Portuguese as evidence for the rising wealth of Portugal that allowed them to become a leader.  They did not consider the contemporaneous textile leading sector in Hondeshoote or the American gold leading sector for Spain as key. Given the industries they deem important I looked at the first leading sector they assigned to a future hegemon and noted the span of time between when that sector took off and when the future MD phase began which would make them leader. We are trying to make forecasts, We cannot wait until the end of the leading sector development (i.e, when it become mature) because the MD phase will have already begun by then.

You point out that although Britain invented the Bessmer process, the US later overtook them.  This is quite true.  The same story is told by GDP, Britain was passed by the US in the 1880's. Yet it was 30 years later that the next MD phase started that would make American the leader. China is where America was in the 1880's, with its position in the IT industries on the verge of passing the US, and its GDP having very recently moved past ours in PPP terms. And you would expect the MD phase to then begin around 30 years from now.  You are arguing for a start in the cycle-equivalent of the 1890's which I see as a couple of decades early.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:According to M&T what sets up a country for future leader role is beginning a new K-wave.

I'm sorry, just so we are clear, am I to understand that you are abandoning this claim?  Because M&T absolutely did not say this.

Quote:Today growth can be directly assessed using GDP, one doesn't not need to assess leading sectors.

And yet China had a larger GDP than Britain well into the 19th century.

Quote:Given the industries they deem important I looked at the first leading sector they assigned to a future hegemon and noted the span of time between when that sector took off and when the future MD phase began which would make them leader.

I realize you like making these very mechanistic rules when devising your theories, but I am not sure I am buying this one.

Quote:We are trying to make forecasts, We cannot wait until the end of the leading sector development (i.e, when it become mature) because the MD phase will have already begun by then.

You're right, which is why I don't think a start date 30 years in the future makes any sense.  The 19th K-wave will be long over by then.

Quote:You point out that although Britain invented the Bessmer process, the US later overtook them.  This is quite true.  The same story is told by GDP, Britain was passed by the US in the 1880's. Yet it was 30 years later that the next MD phase started that would make American the leader. China is where America was in the 1880's, with its position in the IT industries on the verge of passing the US, and its GDP having very recently moved past ours in PPP terms. And you would expect the MD phase to then begin around 30 years from now.  You are arguing for a start in the cycle-equivalent of the 1890's which I see as a couple of decades early.

No, I would expect the M&T macrodecision phase to start about when they said it would.

[Eric the Green]

If Drump wants to start a war, he's got a ready-made enemy ready to fight.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...ebook-post

[Mikebert]

(03-02-2017, 09:40 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:According to M&T what sets up a country for future leader role is beginning a new K-wave.

I'm sorry, just so we are clear, am I to understand that you are abandoning this claim?  Because M&T absolutely did not say this.

Yes. After thinking about it I realized that was my take.

Quote:No, I would expect the M&T macrodecision phase to start about when they said it would.

M&T put together the elements of their model in the late 1970's and 1980's.  The USSR was still around then, and Japan was a rising economic power.  The European countries still had big economies.  Remember the MD phase involves a challenger making a bid  for leadership against a collation that includes the old and new leader.  It was entirely possible that at the end of the MD phase the "winner" would be China who had grown all during that period.  But with the collapse of the USSR and the lack of great power behavior on the part of the other rich country who have had a US as the only country playing the game.  So to even have an MD phase the new leader (China?) will have to play the role of challenger. 

In that case they have to be strong at the start of the phase like the challengers before (Spain, France, Germany).  Future hegemons do not have to be all that strong at the beginning.  In 1689 Britain was weaker than France. Even in 1792 they were still not stronger than France, about even.  But during the war they pulled well ahead.

Although America was the economically strongest in 1914 it was neither the financial not military powerhouse that it would be by the end of the MD phase.  In contrast both France and Germany would at their strongest in terms of economic/military share at the beginning of the phase--which is why they were able to play the role of challenger in the first place.  China is not ready to take on the US and allies in a war analogous to the War of Grand Alliance or WW I.

I came to this stuff in the late 1990's.  At this point it was clear that China would not be ready to play a challenger role in the classic sense.  More likely would be for them to wait for us to collapse like the Soviets did, which I considered to be a MD event.  My argument was with the existence of nukes old-style great power coalition wars had become a thing of the past. The US in the 1990's was in a new Global power phase to end around 2008 and followed by a DC/AS phase over 2008-2026 when China would make a bid for regional dominance--maybe acquire Taiwan if it could be done peacefully like HK (artificial islands never occurred to me).  And that is what the are doing.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:Yes. After thinking about it I realized that was my take.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Quote:<second section>

We have had arguments about your alternate M&T model before.  Is it your intention to rehash it now?  I disagree that the US entered another World Power phase in 1991.  When I reread the book a couple of months ago, I even looked at the naval share charts for each hegemon over its period of dominance and found no support for your rule that the change in naval share in 1991 indicated a restart of the cycle.
As for the bit about the challenger, the old power, and the new power, there are a number of ways things could play out.  We could have a set of wars spaced 20 years apart, with the possibility of one side winning both, or each side winning one.  We could have a gradual decay of one side or the other over the course of the MD phase, with smaller scale clashes and maneuverings attending this (like the switchover between Venice and Genoa).  We could have a situation, which looks unfortunately more plausible than i would really like, where Russia ends up being the challenger to the US in some form (needn't necessarily be a direct conventional conflict), and China the eventual winner.  This is interesting to discuss, but in the absence of further information it is ultimately speculative.  All of those additional rules you tacked on 20 years ago are interesting, but ultimately the theory is about leading sectors (I won't say K-wave because I know how you get distracted when I do) and the transition between world powers.  These still suggest an MD phase starting about 2030 and ending around mid-century.

[Ragnarök_62]

(03-03-2017, 11:51 AM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:Yes. After thinking about it I realized that was my take.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Quote:<second section>

We have had arguments about your alternate M&T model before.    ... <snip>

Hmmmm.....   Wow, man.  I'm back here... and I don't know why.   Oh yes, yes, yes!   I remember now.   What is Mikebert's MBTI type? Mikebert, you're so  introverted, it's a hard call. 
 
(start traits [Mikeberg])
1. Chemical engineer.   OK , that would rule in someone of the rational subtype, which NT.

2. Let's figure out either a sub preferrence to either J/P  and I/E.

3. The theories presented by Mikebert  = (long,detailed,validated) - J

4. I/E.  Fewer posts than Eric., I

Guess = INTJ.
Confirmed guess on Someguy: eNTP, where lower 'e' is low preference.

* notation
<snips> = NT ' , cause either redundant crap or current post is so off the original, that either redundant information or "information that's out of date and desperately neefd a snip due to out of dated nes , +/- redundant crap found, must delete. Eric

Eric, the , .........................................hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...... ya know "posting freak"  ...................................is   toads.............toads........... freaky toads...................    lick toads, it's yuggee.    Donald Trump, licks toads.  That's why he's weird and stuff. Yes, people, get this and get it now, Trump is weird and stuff.
You! Millies! I'm talkin' to you!   Get those earbugs out of yer eeeeres now!  Now that I have y'alls attention, and here it is, Trump licks toads, yes he does. That toad venom is orange. Yes, orange. Look at Trump's hair, it's orange, yes, orange.  Milles, stop, yes stop that SJW stuff, cause it's bait, yes bait. It's a way to get nimrods to act like Nazis. Yeah, that's the ticket, Nazis.  Just call whoever a Nazi, yes Nazi, if they deign to diverge in Y'all's PC stuff, yes, PC stuff. That's what I say to Willis when he says, What ya talkin' about.  I just say, that PC stuff = Nazi.  It's so easy, 'cause it's true.  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..   either that or "cultural Maxism".
I just say that Marxism and Nazism, bother suck.  You know why both suck. It's because both work real hard to ban unions, yes unions.  Unions are the gold standard when they are in sync with workers' rights, yes, workers' rights.  Amazon and Walmart for example think their employees are just a commodity costs. Yeah, if you work at either company, you are a "resource",human" as written in some data base. You see, if you "provide labor" / 1 hr.  , then that's what they have as a computer record on you.  You're just a number, with attributes like units/hr moved, units/hr assemble shipping to customer, and all that shit. Ah, yes, across the land,

"turn on" to weed, opt out globalism, turn on localism"

*localism = community gardens, henhouses, etc. like what Detroit folk are doing. So yeah, go Detroit.

.....

[Eric the Green]

What'ya been smokin today, Ragweed?

[Mikebert]

(03-03-2017, 11:51 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: I even looked at the naval share charts for each hegemon over its period of dominance and found no support for your rule that the change in naval share in 1991 indicated a restart of the cycle.[/quote

Huh?  You didn't see the rise in British share from 1695 to 1715 and the maintence of a high share for decades after that defines the MD and World Power phases? You missed the 30% decline from 1735 to 1785 indicating the decline during the AG and DC phases?  You then missed the resurgence from 1785 to 1815 and the maintenance of high levels for decades after showing a new round of leadership for Britain in the next MD and WP phases?

Quote:As for the bit about the challenger, the old power, and the new power, there are a number of ways things could play out.  We could have a set of wars spaced 20 years apart, with the possibility of one side winning both, or each side winning one.  We could have a gradual decay of one side or the other over the course of the MD phase, with smaller scale clashes and maneuverings attending this (like the switchover between Venice and Genoa).  We could have a situation, which looks unfortunately more plausible than i would really like, where Russia ends up being the challenger to the US in some form (needn't necessarily be a direct conventional conflict), and China the eventual winner.  This is interesting to discuss, but in the absence of further information it is ultimately speculative.  All of those additional rules you tacked on 20 years ago are interesting, but ultimately the theory is about leading sectors (I won't say K-wave because I know how you get distracted when I do) and the transition between world powers.  These still suggest an MD phase starting about 2030 and ending around mid-century.

And how would you invalidate the model? Is any conflict between the US and China constitute support for your idea that a MD phase will begin around the 2020?  How would you prove that a conflict, should one occur, is like the Napoleonic War (an MD war) and not the Seven Years War (a supplementary war)?

[Ragnarök_62]

(03-04-2017, 03:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: What'ya been smokin today, Ragweed?

Hey! Silly, that's Rag'sweed, man.

  , Soma .   A nice calmative for Bipolar. Rags is having problems sleeping.  

Review:

1. Taste:  Gawd awful.
2. Smell:  Mildly skunkish, not pleasant.
3. Buds:  Light green, compact, intense smell, see #2.
4. Affects: Ethereal, calming.
5. Potency:  Lasts forever.
6. Packing: Good, buds have lots of resin.

These "ladies" produce small small compact buds.  This strain is certainly a quality over quantity thing.

Eric, seeing that you're in California, you ought to grow some of these nice ladies for yourself.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:Huh?  You didn't see the rise in British share from 1695 to 1715 and the maintence of a high share for decades after that defines the MD and World Power phases? You missed the 30% decline from 1735 to 1785 indicating the decline during the AG and DC phases?  You then missed the resurgence from 1785 to 1815 and the maintenance of high levels for decades after showing a new round of leadership for Britain in the next MD and WP phases?

What?  I was talking about your prior claim (from another thread) that a sudden spike in naval share over 50% indicated the start of a new WP phase.  Both Portugal (in the 1550s) and Britain II (during and after the Crimean War) had spikes that put them back to or over the 50% mark.  Not M&T's claims regarding naval share in general.

Quote:And how would you invalidate the model?

If the predicted events did not occur. 

Quote:Is any conflict between the US and China constitute support for your idea that a MD phase will begin around the 2020?  How would you prove that a conflict, should one occur, is like the Napoleonic War (an MD war) and not the Seven Years War (a supplementary war)?

Because a MD phase does not last a year, or two, or 7, but 20 or 30.  The last several were noticeable as such, as well.  The MD phase is also supposed to correspond with the conclusion of the 19th K-wave and start-up period of the 20th, so there is that to watch for as well.  At the end of it, one power (presumably America or China) will stand supreme in the way that the US was after WWII or Britain was after the Napoleonic War.
So, if things work out like that, I would consider the thing validated.  Considering that the period is supposed to end around the time I would be looking at retirement, to be honest, it isn't something that is going to be keeping me up at night (barring whatever fireworks ensue if it actually plays out that way).

[Mikebert]

(03-11-2017, 10:31 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Because a MD phase does not last a year, or two, or 7, but 20 or 30.  The last several were noticeable as such, as well.  The MD phase is also supposed to correspond with the conclusion of the 19th K-wave and start-up period of the 20th, so there is that to watch for as well.  At the end of it, one power (presumably America or China) will stand supreme in the way that the US was after WWII or Britain was after the Napoleonic War.
So, if things work out like that, I would consider the thing validated.  Considering that the period is supposed to end around the time I would be looking at retirement, to be honest, it isn't something that is going to be keeping me up at night (barring whatever fireworks ensue if it actually plays out that way).

The Agenda-Building phase lasts a long time too. The K-wave indicator is not helpful because the dating of the it is arbitrary.  Different scholars draw their K-waves in different ways.  Probably the best consensus is the one provided by Goldstein (p 67) in his extensive literature review: http://www.joshuagoldstein.com/jgcyc04.pdf

The only objective measure they have is the naval share.  And the behavior of naval share in this cycle has not been like the behavior in the previous ones.

Goldstein also provides a nice review of hegemony cycles where you can see the various schools of though including the school led by Modelski.  See chapters 5 and 6 in http://www.joshuagoldstein.com/jgcycle.htm

[SomeGuy]

Gah, I was hoping for something interesting, not simply the same old shit. 

Quote:The Agenda-Building phase lasts a long time too.

The M & T delegitimization/agenda-setting(sic) phase began in the 1970s.  It goes WP, DL/AS, Deconcentration/Coalition-Building, then MacroDecision, not (not-really) WP [supposed post WWI phase for US], WP, DL/AS, WP (post-Cold War), DL/AS.

Stop playing mix-and-match.  Use M & T or don't. 

Quote:The K-wave indicator is not helpful because the dating of the it is arbitrary.  Different scholars draw their K-waves in different ways.  Probably the best consensus is the one provided by Goldstein (p 67) in his extensive literature review:

Why have you provided a link to literature about price cycles when M & T said specifically that that wasn't what they were talking about?  I know they used the term "k-wave" for want of a better one, but please stop this borderline-autistic bit where you (figuratively) nod your head and acknowledge that they said not price cycles, hear "k-wave", then immediately think, "Oh, they're talking about price cycles!".

Quote:The only objective measure they have is the naval share.  And the behavior of naval share in this cycle has not been like the behavior in the previous ones.

This is not true, I have already provided page numbers in the book where hegemonic naval share spiked back up to or over 50%, usually right around the midway supplementary war period.  What you are saying is not true.

Quote:Goldstein also provides a nice review of hegemony cycles where you can see the various schools of though including the school led by Modelski.  See chapters 5 and 6 in http://www.joshuagoldstein.com/jgcycle.htm

Will look over it at my leisure.  Unless you are citing something specifically it isn't relevant to what we are talking about now.

[Mikebert]

The K-cycles Goldstein cited are not price cycles per se (although they contain price inputs).  In Kondratieff's original article he looked at BOTH price and real cycles in economic output (what you are referring to as K-waves).  He found them to be roughly synchronous. K-wave researchers since then have looked at both and the consensus cycle Goldstein presents is based on real cycles as well as prices. 

M&T's K-waves are constructs like S&H's generations.  They are not primary data.  They are based on objective data, but are interpreted through a leadership cycle lens.  Other workers can and (and do) find different real K-waves than the ones M&T present, just as others will see different generations than those S&H present.  

But their military data are objective measures of military balance.  You arguments using K-waves is analogous to argument based on generational constellations.  Generational constellation is an application of the theory, not input for analysis, although many here use it as such. 


Here is a comparison of Goldstein consensus K-wave, M&T's K-waves and my own strictly output-based K-waves.
https://mikebert.neocities.org/K-wave-table.htm

There is a lot of agreement.  M&T are pretty much on the consensus track until around 1900.  Then they combined two separate K-waves into one, which pushes there cycle about 25 years from the consensus.  They do this to accommodate their long cycle from 1815-1945, which is about 25 years longer than the 100 year cycle they previously had.  As a result from then on they are 25 years off from the consensus.  If they have presented compelling data for their unusual dating, I haven't seen it.