A broken cycle?

[David Horn]

(07-21-2019, 11:12 AM)Mikebert Wrote: For the first point, the imprinting model already accounts for the phenomenon of elders staying active longer. Note the space between the predicted end of this turning (2022) and the last 2T (1980) is 42 years, whereas that between the previous 4T (1945) and 1980 is only 35 years. The 7 year increase in half-saecula length (14 years for a full saecula) is a direct effect of the older people still playing active roles. This fact does not account for how the current turning, although clearly a social moment, does not seem to be either a 4T or a 2T but has some characteristics of each.

I've been skeptical of this being a true 4T for a long time, though I tended to use the term 'failed 4T', which you discounted as inappropriate. Semantics aside, this is a major turning point in our domestic history, and one that's very contentious -- much moreso that the 4T that encompassed the GD and WW-II. In fact., that seems to be the defining element: a diametrically divided populous, with each side equally vehement about its view and preferred future path. Because our system is not configured to resolve issues that fractious, the only apparent resolutions are civil war or gridlock. We've tried the former, and it was a disaster. That doesn't preclude our trying it again, hopefully in some less violent form.

Mikebert Wrote:As for the last point. Quite correct. This still could be a 4T its not over yet. But if a decade from now we still have the same situation, extreme polarization, ten more years of climate change with no action, perhaps another financial panic and continue lack of wage growth, it will not look like we had a 4T.

I tend to see this as highly likely. A political resolution requires some degree of consensus. How does that occur?