08-13-2016, 08:45 AM
If one defines a critical election as the start of a string of 3 or more presidential terms by the same party, there have been six such elections since the rise of the modern party system: 1828, 1860, 1896, 1920, 1932, 1980. Five out of six have fallen within a social moment turning (i.e. 2T or 4T). The probability of this being chance is about 11%. Using this correlation, I predicted a Democratic victory in 2016 years ago. This would help confirm 2008 as being part of a 4T. Using the mechanism of generational imprinting I formulated a generational model that forecasts social moments. This model predicts that start of a 4T around 2003. My earlier work using a correlation between Kondratieff signposts and turnings had implied the start of the 4T was in the 2000-2008 period. Taken together this all implies that if the S&H cycle is valid, a 4T began not later than 2008 and quite possibly before, but not earlier than 2000.
I am working on a hypothesis that the turnaround in inequality last cycle reflected a crisis in capitalism over 1907-1941 caused by high inequality. It is happening again, with a new episode beginning around 2006. It is rare that history aligns to give you an opportunity to make an explicit (relatively) short term prediction. This is one of those times. The capitalist crisis hypothesis (CCH) predicts a 10000+ drop in the Dow from its peak before the beginning of the next economic expansion. If this fails to happen CCH is rejected.
CCH also predicts another financial crisis during the next recession or the one after it. If this fails to happen, CCH is rejected. CHH can be combined with the S&H cycle to produce a very specific prediction that can be tested. If CCH is valid this means we need another panic by ca. 2028. This would begin real action on the 4T, which would likely take a couple of presidential terms, so a 4T extending to the mid 2030's would be expected. This would make the 4T 25-35 years long, which defies the normal length of modern turnings, particularly if you reject the idea of the civil war anomaly. Thus, I think the S&H cycle mandates that the financial crisis must happen at the earlier time—in the next recession.
That is, if both CCH and S&H are valid, we must see a 10000+ point drop in the Dow and another financial crisis in President Hillary Clinton's first term. The stakes are huge. If she finds a way to restore some semblance of prosperity, the GOP will be out of the picture for a decade or more, during which Democrats play the major GC roles. If not economic collapse will end the 4T and introduce an austere 1T over which Republicans will rule.*
The latter outcome is favored (538 estimates a 65% probability). The better Democrats do in this election the better their chances for an outcome favorable to Democrats.
*This statement would seem partisan. Why can’t the Republicans fix the economy? The reason is the core of CCH. If CCH is valid then they cannot, their operating paradigm (i.e what makes them Republican) lacks the necessary policies. If CCH is invalid, then this is not true of course, but then if CCH is invalid there won’t be a financial crisis for them to worry about in the first place and so the question is moot.
I am working on a hypothesis that the turnaround in inequality last cycle reflected a crisis in capitalism over 1907-1941 caused by high inequality. It is happening again, with a new episode beginning around 2006. It is rare that history aligns to give you an opportunity to make an explicit (relatively) short term prediction. This is one of those times. The capitalist crisis hypothesis (CCH) predicts a 10000+ drop in the Dow from its peak before the beginning of the next economic expansion. If this fails to happen CCH is rejected.
CCH also predicts another financial crisis during the next recession or the one after it. If this fails to happen, CCH is rejected. CHH can be combined with the S&H cycle to produce a very specific prediction that can be tested. If CCH is valid this means we need another panic by ca. 2028. This would begin real action on the 4T, which would likely take a couple of presidential terms, so a 4T extending to the mid 2030's would be expected. This would make the 4T 25-35 years long, which defies the normal length of modern turnings, particularly if you reject the idea of the civil war anomaly. Thus, I think the S&H cycle mandates that the financial crisis must happen at the earlier time—in the next recession.
That is, if both CCH and S&H are valid, we must see a 10000+ point drop in the Dow and another financial crisis in President Hillary Clinton's first term. The stakes are huge. If she finds a way to restore some semblance of prosperity, the GOP will be out of the picture for a decade or more, during which Democrats play the major GC roles. If not economic collapse will end the 4T and introduce an austere 1T over which Republicans will rule.*
The latter outcome is favored (538 estimates a 65% probability). The better Democrats do in this election the better their chances for an outcome favorable to Democrats.
*This statement would seem partisan. Why can’t the Republicans fix the economy? The reason is the core of CCH. If CCH is valid then they cannot, their operating paradigm (i.e what makes them Republican) lacks the necessary policies. If CCH is invalid, then this is not true of course, but then if CCH is invalid there won’t be a financial crisis for them to worry about in the first place and so the question is moot.