Quote:If this is the only financial panic for 20 years after 2008 this would be significant.
What, the 1937 recession was quite bad, I guess the last fourth turning didn't start until 1938 or 1939.
Quote:But suppose there is another one in the next 2-3 years? We had panics in 1857, 1873. 1884, 1893 and 1907 giving spacing of 9-16 years (average 12.5) so there is precedent.
So far. Suppose we get another candidate--another crisis like suggested above or something else? Why should 2008 be favored over the other two? If you say 2008 fits the generations better, isn't that fitting the facts to the theory?
I think there will a another financial shock in the next 1-3 years, I don't know if it will be as bad as 2008 though.
Quote:Except these aren't big movements. They are similar in scale to the Religious Right, Divestment and Anti-nuke protests of the eighties. Nothing we have seen is remotely on the scale or intensity as the protests of the 1960's and early 1970's. There has been rising sociopolitical instability of a vastly larger scale in terms of violence. These are the rampage killings.
There has been a rising sense of general civil unrest and political discontent for the past 5-6 years and these various movements are part of that, the women's march that just happened was possibly the largest protest the US has ever seen. Just last week millions of people were marching in the streets literally, what's you're definition of big?
Even in 1969 there was not THIS kind of reaction to Nixon's inauguration, you are right that we have yet to approach the violent severity of 1967, 1968 but if Peter Turchin's prediction is right the early 2020s could be worse than that period, he's saying it could get as bad as 1919!
Quote:What I am getting at, is if there is something to this theory, it should be possible to predict that certain events will/will not happen as an experiment, so as the test the theory. Otherwise how can you ever validate it?
But you have ignored the most vital part of the theory, generational aging, if what you are saying is true then the flower children of '67 are not Boomers, the early grungers and crack dealers of the early '90s are not Xers, heck I'm Gen X.
You'd have to push the generations boundaries up by about a decade for each living adult generation today, there would be no internal consistency of the theory itself.