How different is Western Europe's saecular timeline?

[FLBones]

(12-18-2016, 08:20 AM)Mikebert Wrote: I think the situation is even worse.  In generational terms 4Ts begin shortly after the aligned generational constellation.  That is, when Artists occupy elderhood, Prophets occupy mature adulthood and Nomads rising adulthood.  With 20-year generations we have elderhood from 60-79. Applying this to Silents (1925-1942) gives 2004 and 2002.  Applying 40-59 to Boomers (1943-1960) gives 2002 and 1999.  Applying 20-39 to Xers (1961-1981) gives 2000 and 2001.  Averaging these all together gives 2001.  This would be the projected final year for the Millie generation assuming 20-year generation/turning length.  S&H hedged their bets and added two years to accommodate a 22-year Millie gen and gave the date as 2003 in Generations.  Then then added a couple of years and projected the 4T start for 2005 in T4T.  These earlier dates and the once-popular view of a 4T start in 2001 all were based on the birth dates of the generations before the Millennials and the average length of the previous four that had averaged 20 years in length.

The 2001 data fell out of favor when events did not support it.  Although 911 ushered in a new era of authoritarian government featuring mass surveillance of the population and summary executions and even torture, the perception was that nothing much had changed.  In 2008 the economy nearly collapsed due to a financial crisis.  None too healthy before the crisis, the economy feels much weaker after.  And yet nothing changed policy-wise afterward.  Either outcome of the 2016 election promises more of the same. Although Trump ran as a change agent, his economic agenda appears to be the same tax cut and grow the debt policy Republicans have offered for 35 years now.  Here's a comparison of the post-1980 Republican economic plan with what they offered before:

Year     Spend     Rev     Deficit     Year     Spend      Rev     Deficit      Year     Spend     Rev     Deficit         
1921       6.8       7.5       -0.7       1981     21.1       18.7       2.5       1992      21.1       16.7      4.4
1922       4.4       5.4       -1.0       1982     22.3       18.5       3.8       1993      20.5       16.8      3.7
1923       3.6       4.5       -0.8       1983     22.2       16.5       5.7       1994      20.0       17.2      2.8
1924       3.3       4.4       -1.1       1984     21.1       16.5       4.6       1995      19.8       17.6      2.2
1925       3.2       4.0       -0.8       1985     21.8       16.9       4.9       1996      19.3       17.9      1.4
1926       3.0       3.9       -0.9       1986     21.6       16.8       4.8       1997      18.6       18.3      0.3
1927       3.0       4.2       -1.2       1987     20.6       17.5       3.1       1998      18.2       18.9    -0.7
1928       3.0       4.0       -1.0       1988     20.3       17.3       3.0       1999      17.6       18.9    -1.3
1929       3.0       3.7       -0.7       1989     20.2       17.5       2.7       2000      17.4       19.7    -2.3
All values expressed as % of GDP


Shown is the Republican fiscal policy of the 1920's under Secretary Mellon and the 1980's policy under President Reagan. Both periods featured top bracket tax cuts, from 73% to 25% in the 1920's and from 70% to 28% in the 1980's, which resulted is falling revenue.  Mellon's tax cuts were accompanied by defense spending cuts that fully offset declining revenues and can be called a fiscally conservative and small government.  Reagan's were not, although Republicans continued to describe them as such.


Funny thing was Clinton actually did what Mellon had done.  He oversaw large cuts in defense and other spending which cut spending by 3.7% of GDP and tax increases that increased revenues by 3.0% of GDP, engineering a fiscal turnaround of 6.7% of GDP.  The 1990's outcome was similar to that of the 1920's, deflationary growth that led to a speculative bubble on the stock market.

Here you see a changing of the coats.  Republicans ceased to be the party of fiscal conservatism, and after a delay, Democrats (or perhaps I should say DLC Democrats) picked up the mantle.  Over the same time the Republicans transformed from the party of the Northeastern establishment (i.e. Blue America) to the party of the South and (non-coastal) West (Red America).  The Democrats became more and more like the Republicans/Whigs of old.  Both parties still hang on to key elements.  Democrats continue to be the party of immigrants, and Republicans still are the party of the Old Right (i.e. those folks Eisenhower disparaged).  But for a long time they continued to represent themselves as what they once were, but no longer are:  Republicans *still* often describe themselves as fiscal conservatives when this has manifestly not been the case for 35 years. Democrats *still* describe themselves as the party of working people when this as clearly not been the case for 25 years.

In other words they lie, repeatedly.  Partisanship has created a situation in which both camps live in different realities as far as perceptions of the human world go. Republicans got a decade head start on Democrats and so they have traveled further on this path, so this is more apparent on the Right than the Left, but its there in both.

And so there we are.  Rigor mortis has set in, preserving the 3T status quo. Generationally the 4T clock is running out.  Gen X will fully occupy mature adulthood in 2020-21, which is when the Adaptive generation will come to an end. A few years after should come the 1T, generationally-speaking. Yet in 2020 we will still be living in the same post-2016 world, with the same rigor mortis.  Will the 3T then continue on to the 1T?

We are not still in the 3T. You can't go from 3T to 1T without a 4T.