(01-30-2017, 09:31 PM)Mikebert Wrote:Quote:This is a very odd reading of history. The French Revolution was not a significant factor in the Napoleonic Wars, the Glorious Revolution not a significant factor in the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV? I disagree.
I anticipate a crisis climax setting in motion the macrodecision phase, with some overlap. How exactly that plays out remains to be seen.
There would be no 4T restructuring along the Bush lines, so the 4T date gets moved up to the next big event, the financial crisis in 2008. Like Bush, Obama had his own plan to inaugurate a liberal era. It now looks like this will go down, just like Bush's. The 2016 election was also big thing--a magnified version of the 2000 election. If a second 911 or 2008-scale event occurs, why shouldn't we move the date up yet again? Suppose its another financial crisis. If we have another crisis, why should the one in 2008 be more special than the new one? Shouldn't we judge which one is the trigger based one what happens after? Suppose a crisis happens, Trump deals with it successfully, gets relected and is succeed by another two-term president. This would make Trump greater than Reagan. Wouldn't it make sense for the crisis era to begin in 2016 and last (at least) until the second Republican leaves office?
What you are saying right here would literally discredit the notion of generations as outlined by Howe/Strauss, 2016 is way too late for the fourth turning catalyst, I would argue the crash of '08 catalyzed the circumstances we see today, like rising authoritarian populism, election of Trump, Brexit, ect. This is pretty much what to expect during a fourth turning, it's not like all problems get solved at once, it's a process that takes a generation(20-22 years).