01-09-2017, 08:37 AM
(01-08-2017, 07:36 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: It's a representative democracy, holding both houses of Congress, the White House, and the majority of state houses IS a "true majority". They have a window, and if they genuinely can't maintain effective popular support than they will lose those seats, but it's the seats themselves that matter, and until they lose those seats they have all the majority they need.Precisely. Republicans had this in 2001 and over 2003-2006. Dems had it in 2009-10. So of the 16 years since 2000, one or the other party has had control 3/8's of the time. The take a look at the graph of pre capita GDP Warren and I posted. The current economy problem began in 2001 in this data. The terrorism problem also came to the public's attention in 2001. It is clear that today's problems were present and apparent by 2001. Both parties had ample opportunity to deal with them. Neither did.
Take a look at my extension of Warren's graph. You can see we have been here before. A downward deviation from trend growth also occurred early in the 20th century. A similar deviation has become noticeable after 2007. You can see that the deviation was fairly modest for two decades and then got much bigger after 1929. The current deviation is also modest. During the first of these deviation periods immigration was sharped restricted over 1921-24, more than a decade into the deviation period. That is we should see immigration restriction if history repeats. Trump ran on this, I expect to see it, and so I put it on his report card. It didn't work then and I doubt it will work now. So it goes.
Now when the GOP took the helm in 1921, we were at a stock market bottom. Supply-side nostrums implemented during the 1920's were able to generate an invest-led boom that lasted for most of the decade. Trump is coming in with the stock market already in the #3 position for most overvalued in history. I find it hard to believe the bull market is going to run another 8 years. It will probably peak soon and then we will have a recession, which would be consistent with the normal length of the modern business cycle. So I don't think Trump is going to get the sort of results Harding/Coolidge got. He is more likely to be telescoped right into Hoover's position. If we actual are 4T now, were cannot wait more than a decade for the 1932 moment and another decade after that to respond.
When I throw out these different dates I am using different cycle traditions. That is I am trying on different viewpoints to see what they say and bouncing them off folks here. By using different cycles and different common version of the cycle, you get different views. For example the monetary K-cycle has us within a few years of 1940 in the last cycle. Had Clinton won the political cycle would also have us around 1940, but she didn't so it is up in the air. M&T would have us around 1895 give or take a decade. Turchin's secular cycle has us around 1940.
The K-cycle, Turchin's cycle and the political cycle has signposts so you can tell where you are in the cycle if you are close to one of them. The S&H and M&T cycles have no signposts you have to rely on people's opinions to know your location, which makes them less useful.