I'm a sceptic that the 4th Turning started in 2008

[David Horn]

(06-26-2020, 02:57 PM)Mikebert Wrote: You seem to be implying that the pandemic is going make lots of change happen quickly. Change takes time. Look at past 4Ts.

The economy collapsed in 1929. Pre-slump unemployment was not re-established until 1942, by which time we were embroiled in a massive war. That finally was resolved four years later. Total time needed to deal with the crash 17 years.

South Carolina seceded from the union in 1860. A war began, the Confederacy was defeated. What the crisis resolved? No! We then enacted Reconstruction that lasted until 1877. We then threw in the towel. After 17 years we still couldn't resolve the crisis, but we destroyed the Southern elites, so we managed to resolve the political stress.

The American colonies revolted against the central government. After 6 years the battle was won, but was the problem solved? No! We needed another 8 years to establish a viable successor state. This crisis took 14 years to resolve.

We have had at least three triggers in the last couple of decades. In the aftermath of 911 we engaged in two interventions in which we made far less than the minimal required effort to prevail. As a result both failed. That is a 3T response.

In the aftermath of the 2008 panic, Democrats enacted under-powered interventions which ultimately failed. Failure is shown by the results of the 2010 election. This too is a 3T response.

Now we face the crisis of the pandemic. Again, the response has been under-powered, another 3T response.  What the Biden administration does, assuming they win this fall, may or may not be another 3T response. We will see.

Even if they opt to take this thing seriously, that doesn't mean they will choose to address the core issue of this 4T, which is NOT the pandemic. And even if they do address it, past experience shows it takes 14-17 years to resolve these things.

So IF we actually resolve the issues (i.e. actually have a 4T) it will take until the mid-2030's to do so, at the earliest. If the *generational* 4T is nearly over then there is zero probability that we will have something that looks like a 4t on the timetable S&H put forth. We will still have one, but it will fall into some other turning.

Bob covered a lot of this already, but I'll still weigh in.

What really constitutes change? I'll agree that the nuts-and-bolts reforms take an inordinate amount of time, but the change of heart needed to get there happens more quickly. You cite the last 4T, which has the unique benefit of being a crisis in a fully post-agricultural age. We went from 12 years of GOP dominance and laisse faire economics in the 1920s to a total flip of parties, and eventually philosophy, in 1932. Why? I'll postulate that the voting public decided that the old social and economic model was broken, was hurting them personally, and something different was needed. Of course, something different is never a simple thing, because, until it truly exists, it's a basket of ideas with no track record.

For all of that, the public gave Roosevelt unprecedented support as he tried one thing after another. Yes, it was the war that finally resolved the problem, but the massive changes already existed before the economy was restored. Even the Lincoln era failed to grow government like the Great Depression era did. Government wasn't the solution, in and of itself. It was, however, the indispensable tool. The power of capital was enormous, and the countervailing power of labor was small in comparison. At that time there was no real consumer power. Capitalism had triggered the fall, and some other thing needed to fix it. In my opinion, that was the essence of the last 4T.