Well, I'm back

[Mikebert]

(01-12-2018, 08:06 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-11-2018, 05:52 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Glad you are feeling better Bob.  Well I finally have a workable model for the S&H cycle. I submitted it for publication in Cliodynamics Journal, got it back from the reviewers, who accepted it with revisions, I made the revisions and sent it back and now am awaiting final decision.

Basically there are three cyclical phenomenon.  One is the political stress index (PSI) invented by Jack Goldstone, which is mostly a function of economic inequality.  This cycle affects the demand for a political restructuring, i.e. a 4T.

Another is the social contagion model, proposed by Peter Turchin, which says that radical ideologies can act as infective agents, and spread though the population like an epidemic.  Turchin created a model that works on the principle that when naïve people (uninfected) contact radicals (infected) they have a chance of becoming radicalized (becoming infected). Radicals can, after a period of time, recover from the radicalization and become moderates (this is analogous to infected people recovering from the disease). The present of moderates in the population exerts a suppressive effect on radicalization (analogous to herd immunity). The level of radicalization (as forecast by the model) affects the demand for a social moment, either a 2T or a 4T.

Finally there is the S&H model. It asserts that you can't have a social moment without a political moment.  But you can't have a political moment (defined exactly as a social moment except political) until a dominant generation comes to power (this is a more precise representation of the idea of the generational constellation that needs to be in place). 

So you can have a period like 1919, when radicalization predicted by the social contagion model peaked, indicating maximum demand for a social moment (either a 2T or a 4T).  Furthermore economic inequality had peaked in 1916 (and would peak at a slightly higher level in 1929) making PSI high (and going higher).  So there was demand for a 4T specifically. The country was in a revolutionary moment, and then--the country decided that what they wanted was a "Return to Normalcy". WTF?  Why did this happen?  Because a recessive generation was in power and you need a political moment* to create a social moment (this is the core of S&H's contribution).

Now generations by themselves are not enough.  In 1801, the Hero generation who had come of age in during the Revolution (e.g. Jefferson and Madison and their contemporaries) came to power following what Jefferson called "The Revolution of 1800". Political scientists agree with Jefferson that the 1801-1816 period was revolutionary. Nobody else does.  Why?  Well PSI had been falling for two decades in 1801, so there was no support for a 4T (not surprising we had just had one).  The level of radicalization was also low (the peak would not be until around 1830), so there was no demand for a 2T. With no demand for either a 2T or a 4T, the political moment created by the Revolutionary Hero generation coming to power created neither, S&H record the entire era (and large portions of the non-political moments before and after) as a very long 1T, associated with a 30-year-long Transcendental generation. In other words, Jefferson's "revolution" was a snooze-fest. Many T4Ters have thought S&H got that huge generation wrong. They didn't.  It worked out that way because of the way the other cycles turned out.

There is more than one cycle at work here.  This is why it has been so confusing. Once you add in the social milieu in which the generations are acting, it all falls into place.

*That is the right generation(s) in place.

Good work Mike, as always.  I'm not sure there are enough posters left here to appreciate your work, but I do and just wanted you to know it.  Which brings us to today.  Judging by the rather bizarre climate we're in, your new model may help to explain what's up and why.  Have you looked at it yet?

Thanks.  Sure.  First we have a dominant generation coming to power about 2008. We can call them the "generation of '68". They came of age (i.e. turned 21) over the 1968-1983 period, which roughly corresponds to a Boomer gen born over 1946-1962 (this is just what the generational model outputs). Anyways, what the gen model forecasts is a political moment beginning around 2008.  We had an election in 2008 so the political moment would begin in that year, which means 2008 should be a critical election. Past critical elections in 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896 and 1932 all feature the winning party winning at least three presidential terms in a row. The critical election of 1968 saw a six election period when the 1968 winner (Republicans) won five.  This figure shows a plot that helps identify into what class 2008 should fall. The figure was made some years ago, so it contains three possibilities, (lt blue) Dems win in 2016, 2020, (red) Reps win in 2016, 2020 and (purple) Reps win in 2016 and Dems in 2020. The lit blue did not happen.  Red rules out a critical election in 2008 and a political moment beginning in that year and invalidates the generational model. So if the model is valid, it predicts a Democratic victory in 2020.



A political moment can trigger a social moment if the conditions are right (as determined by the other two models) As I mentioned above, we had a political moment over 1801-1816 when the revolutionary gen was in power but no social moment.

Next is the story told by the social contagion model.  This model forecasts a peak in radicalization in 2017.  This means an political moment will be a social moment, we just don't know what kind yet.

For that we turn to PSI.  PSI is typically high at the start of crisis-type political moments and low at the start of awakening-type ones.  In 2008 PSI was of middle-value, higher than it was at the start of all three prior 2Ts and lower than it was at the start of the 3 previous 4Ts. Thus, if a political moment did begin in 2008 (which we won't know until Nov 2020) then it started right out with a configuration consistent with a 2T, but with some 4T character. We should expect a social moment with a lot of 2T-type stuff, which things like #Me Too, BLM, suggests, but also with some 4T character as the popularity of Bernie Sanders and the economic message of Donald Trump suggest.

This makes today most like the period around 100 years ago.  The social contagion model  peaked in 1919, economic inequality and PSI was also high (but had not been in 1896, when the 2T political moment had begun).  We had all the ingredients for revolutionary change *except* for the dominant generation, who had passed from the scene in 1914, according to the generational model. And we did not get a 4T.  Instead the 1896-1919 political moment maps out as a 2T. The religious event plot (see below) shows elevated activity in the teens and twenties consistent with a 2T.  The era was filled with strum and drang, four constitutional amendments were passed and yet the problem of inequality (and the capitalist crisis that results for it) remained unaddressed, as demonstrated by the economic collapse in 1929-33.



100 years ago we did not have an overvalued market. Last month, S&P500 valuation reached 1929 levels.  The capitalist crisis appeared around 2006, a century after its first appearance in 1907. So if we get a crash which causes the economy to crater, they will be political demand for a 4T fix. Unlike in 1919, there still is a dominant generation in power, and so it is possible that this period can still map into a 4T.  If not then it will end up as a second 2T.