Micro 4T?

[Mikebert]

(08-14-2017, 04:06 PM)David Horn Wrote: Obama had a similar problem to Trump, without the  narcissism.  He tried to run his agenda in a vacuum, took on healthcare first, then lost Congress and any chance to do more.  After 2010, almost everything Obama accomplished was by executive order, and easily overturned.

This is part of why I fear what will have should Dems return to power in 2020. They focused on expanding the welfare state and not on fixing the economy.  I see the same lack of imagination on the part of Sanders, who ran on a more robust welfare state, with higher taxes to pay for it. It seems that for him the purpose of the taxes is to pay for the new programs. But this is the reverse.  The purpose for the programs is to sell the increased taxes.  Then once in power you hike the taxes permanently, but do not implement the programs,  Rather you opt for a 3-4 year ginormous stimulus to jump start the economy, which once it takes effect is phased out, while the surge in revenues radically shifts the deficit to a surplus.  This will tamp down inflationary forces allowing you to keep interest rates at rock bottom levels even as wages begin to head up. As the stock market begins to surge you hike long-term capital gains taxes to 30-35% to prevent bubble formation and you use the military (where possible) to take out tax havens that refuse to reveal their depositors to the US government.

If it works to reflate the economy from a serious downturn you will probably keep your Congressional majority and get re-elected. In you second term you can push for things like universal health care and so on.  If you can get that then you get a third term and that would confirm 2008 as a critical election and a 4T start, which would make the 2008-2032 fit into a 4T category quite neatly.

This has always been the most "textbook" scenario, which was why I thought it very very unlikely.  Besides I thought Clinton was going to win in 2016 in which case 2008 would still be confirmed as a 4T start, but I could not see anyway things could work out as successful.

Of course they are also very neatly-fitting scenarios where Trump is successful, but these invalidate the S&H cycle, but not the other cycles I work with.  I had thought these scenarios were more likely that the one above, but I had thought Trump would be focusing more on the head of state role leaving the executive management role to Pence.  It turns out that Trump apparently does not like to entertain.