03-21-2017, 07:35 PM
Gah, I was hoping for something interesting, not simply the same old shit. 
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.
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!".
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.
Will look over it at my leisure. Unless you are citing something specifically it isn't relevant to what we are talking about now.
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.