2021: generational tipping point

[Warren Dew]

And now the Democrats are busy running away from OWS while the Republicans are busy pretending they weren't taken over by the Tea Party.

[mamabug]

(01-28-2021, 03:47 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: And now the Democrats are busy running away from OWS while the Republicans are busy pretending they weren't taken over by the Tea Party.

You could make a credible argument that Trump was the backlash to the establishment Republicans marginalizing the Tea Party after their first round of election victories.  

For the last four years, the democrats were able to keep their populist elements in the fold by uniting against Trump (divide and conquer is always an effective strategy for the rulers to control the ruled) but it is bound to start fracturing badly if they don't address it.   I am not seeing anything to suggest they are - witness the semi-hilarious 'Game Stop Rebellion' and the less hilarious reaction to it.  The establishment DNC is working overtime to divide and conquer by portraying this as a bunch of Racist Trumptards who are persecuting the poor, white, male, ivy-league educated, hedge fund managers but I don't think it is playing well.  When you have AOC, the Young Turks, and Ted Cruz all on the side of the Redditors and the administration unable to comment on it beyond pointing to diversity, something is breaking.

Sometimes the reaction to a thing is more important than the thing itself.  I felt that way about the Capitol Breach and the same about WSB - both are signs that the general sentiment that institutions are failing those not part of the upper classes is still predominant on the left and the right.  We live in the heart of antifa country and my husband drives around downtown for work.  All the graffiti on the plywood covering store windows is now reading F*** Biden!   

I'm beginning to think Trump was the distraction from the true battle to come.

[Eric the Green]

(01-29-2021, 01:50 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(01-28-2021, 03:47 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: And now the Democrats are busy running away from OWS while the Republicans are busy pretending they weren't taken over by the Tea Party.

You could make a credible argument that Trump was the backlash to the establishment Republicans marginalizing the Tea Party after their first round of election victories.  

For the last four years, the democrats were able to keep their populist elements in the fold by uniting against Trump (divide and conquer is always an effective strategy for the rulers to control the ruled) but it is bound to start fracturing badly if they don't address it.   I am not seeing anything to suggest they are - witness the semi-hilarious 'Game Stop Rebellion' and the less hilarious reaction to it.  The establishment DNC is working overtime to divide and conquer by portraying this as a bunch of Racist Trumptards who are persecuting the poor, white, male, ivy-league educated, hedge fund managers but I don't think it is playing well.  When you have AOC, the Young Turks, and Ted Cruz all on the side of the Redditors and the administration unable to comment on it beyond pointing to diversity, something is breaking.

Sometimes the reaction to a thing is more important than the thing itself.  I felt that way about the Capitol Breach and the same about WSB - both are signs that the general sentiment that institutions are failing those not part of the upper classes is still predominant on the left and the right.  We live in the heart of antifa country and my husband drives around downtown for work.  All the graffiti on the plywood covering store windows is now reading F*** Biden!   

I'm beginning to think Trump was the distraction from the true battle to come.

Interesting post to reply to, as usual

You may be right about the battle to come. But will this battle shape history? I doubt it. A right-wing rebellion like the one on Jan.6, even more organized and enduring, will be crushed. It will not occur unless the Democrats are in power, but it will be crushed if they are.

A left-wing rebellion consists of angry young people who can do little more than break windows, set tires on fire or paint graffiti. It would have no chance regardless of which Party is in power. But it could join some battles against white supremacy conspiracy theorists like those who invaded the Capitol. But, that will be the distraction.

The word "populist" has been horrible abused and deformed by the media and pundits. It means power to the people. But those whom are called populist today want power taken away from the people.

Trumpists are indeed largely former Tea Partiers, who in turn were mostly supporters of George W Bush, who were in turn mostly supporters of the Contract With America, who in turn were mostly supporters of Reagan and Bush and the moral majority and tax revolt, who in turn were mostly former supporters of Wallace and the Nixon southern strategy, who in turn were mostly supporters of Barry Goldwater, who in turn were mostly supporters of Senator Joseph McCarthy, who in turn were mostly opponents of FDR and Truman, who in turn were mostly supporters of Harding and Coolidge, etc.

The gamestoppers are of as little consequence politically as other online cults that millennials and younger Xers have mentioned here from time to time. Real politics is still where the rubber meets the road. The gamestoppers are not a political group. I have no idea what WSB means. 

But right now, Biden is doing as much as anyone could do to address the real needs of those not part of the upper classes. His Party is doing the same, and will be united enough to help Biden get some of what he wants. The only fault of any failure will lie with the resistance put up by the Republican opposition, just has been the case for 40 years now. Those on the right, to a person, support the upper classes and oppose the interests of everyone else. That fact is not changed by the fact that Trump was able to deceive many of them that he, an upperclass conman, was on their side.

[Eric the Green]

(01-16-2021, 08:59 AM)jleagans Wrote: Hahahahahahahah.  "Gen X takeover of leadership"

Not happening, sorry.  The two dominant generations (Hero and Prophet) are the only ones that ever control society.  The war between the two is the defining dynamic of the generational system.  Look at the Boomers, their first half was a war against the GI Gen to get control (which happens around the midpoint of life, which was the 1980's and Reagan for Boomers) and their second half has been an escalating war with Millennials more and more demanding control.  And as Millennials are all hitting their midpoint that control is soon to come.  

The smaller generations (Silent and Nomad) never get control, and their only shot at Presidents comes at the TRANSITION from Hero to Prophet or Prophet to Hero.

FDR to Eisenhower all Prophet generation (1933-1960).  28 years of control.
JFK to George H. W. Bush were all Hero GI Generation (1961-1992) .  32 years of control.
Bill Clinton to Trump were all Prophet Boomer Generation (1993-2020).  28 years of control.

While the boundary years from the older generation are still pretty unclear, when I tried to map it out the last time I couldnt find a single President that was a clear Nomad (roughly 1890's/1900's).

Artist Presidents: 1920-1932, 2020+.  Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Biden. The Artist generation has done a bit better, but they only seem to be able to win after pandemics by making a "return to normalcy" appeal!  And none of them have pulled two terms.

Wilson - artist (adaptive), 3T president
Harding - prophet, 3T president
Coolidge - prophet, 3T president
Hoover - prophet, 3T/4T president
FDR - prophet/nomad cusp, 4T president
Truman - nomad, 4T/1T president
Eisenhower - nomad, 1T president
JFK - civic, 1T president
Johnson - civic, 2T president
Nixon - civic, 2T president
Ford - civic, 2T president
Carter - civic, 2T president
Reagan - civic, 2T/3T president
Bush I - civic, 3T president
Clinton - prophet, 3T president
Bush II - prophet, 3T president
Obama - nomad/prophet cusp, 4T president
Trump - prophet, 4T president
Biden - artist/prophet cusp, 4T president

[Eric the Green]

(01-28-2021, 12:55 PM)mamabug Wrote: If I had to pick a marker that indicates a point where we had definitely transitioned into a 4T, I would pick Occupy Wall Street and the mirror populist Tea Party Movement (so around 2010/2011 when both took off).  We may have started entering the era earlier, but that point was where the seeds of the current conflicts first sprouted.

It was the great recession of 2008 that gave full impetus to Occupy Wall Street, which was also a direct part of the Arab Spring revolutions. As for the Tea Party, no events were needed to arouse them. They had already been in place for decades. All that was needed was someone they oppose being in the White House, which they feel entitled to. The fact the Obama was black made the Tea Party and the succeeding Trump cult even more fanatical.

The Tea Party is the opposite of "populist," a term that has been horribly deformed into meaning an ignorant populace that favors dictators. That's not its true meaning. Its meaning is a movement to bring power back to the common people. The Tea Party are believers in no taxes. Taxed Enough Already. That is the opposite aim. NO! Trickle-down economics does not trickle. It tinkles down. This debate has precisely marked the two major USA political parties since 1896. And as Rachel Maddow said, now we are beginning to remember the last times that somebody promised us a trickle. Trump may be the last president to make this promise.

The definitive statement on Tea Party anti-populist economics:




BOING! Still waiting for the trickle!

[mamabug]

(01-30-2021, 10:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Tea Party is the opposite of "populist," a term that has been horribly deformed into meaning an ignorant populace that favors dictators. That's not its true meaning. Its meaning is a movement to bring power back to the common people. 

You are allowing your dislike of their proposed solutions to color your understanding of what the movement actually involved.  Primarily, it was a reaction against TARP and bailouts of Wall Street paid for by imposing taxes on the independent middle class along with an increasing regulatory burden that benefited big business. Yes, since it is on the right, it tends to take an 'anti taxation' approach but that doesn't turn it into a movement of the elites.   

You could say the difference between the Tea Party and OWS is that the former aspired to become the 1% through their own efforts while the latter sought to make them pay for the systemic advantage they'd been given.  Both had in common the feeling that the system was rigged against the common people and wanted to bring power back to them.  The left through refactoring the system to advantage those they saw as being oppressed and the right by restoring what they saw as the fundamental values that had made the country work.  IMO, neither side was fully right or fully wrong in their proposed solutions.  They also had a lot more in common than either wanted to admit, but in the 3T slide into 4T era it became increasingly difficult for each not to point to one side of American Politics and blame it for all the problems.

Divide and conquer.  There's a reason it's listed in the 36 stratagems.

[mamabug]

(01-30-2021, 09:57 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You may be right about the battle to come. But will this battle shape history? I doubt it. A right-wing rebellion like the one on Jan.6, even more organized and enduring, will be crushed. It will not occur unless the Democrats are in power, but it will be crushed if they are.

A left-wing rebellion consists of angry young people who can do little more than break windows, set tires on fire or paint graffiti. It would have no chance regardless of which Party is in power. But it could join some battles against white supremacy conspiracy theorists like those who invaded the Capitol. But, that will be the distraction.

I don't know if it will be a battle that shapes history, it is too early to tell.  Incorporating the concerns of the populists over the brokenness of the system is essential, though, to resolving it.  

Quote:But right now, Biden is doing as much as anyone could do to address the real needs of those not part of the upper classes. His Party is doing the same, and will be united enough to help Biden get some of what he wants. The only fault of any failure will lie with the resistance put up by the Republican opposition, just has been the case for 40 years now. Those on the right, to a person, support the upper classes and oppose the interests of everyone else. That fact is not changed by the fact that Trump was able to deceive many of them that he, an upperclass conman, was on their side.

I'm withholding judgement on how Biden and the DNC power structure is doing.  Again, heart of antifa country here and they are not on board yet.  I'm concerned about some of the things he's stated that, if enacted into policy, will only increase populist resentment on the right in a very needless manner. 

I think you have a stereotypical view of who is actually an elite in this country.  They break pretty evenly Democrat/Republican across the business and political class, but are disproportionately Democrat in journalism, academia, and entertainment.  They all come from similar backgrounds, marry each other, send their kids to the same schools, and move back and forth between the private sector and the public sector.  I would argue that ALL politicians at the Federal level (with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions) support the elites to a man.  One side just has better propaganda.

[Einzige]

It's always a generational tipping point - 2008 and 2012 and 2016 and 2021....


At some point you concede that, even if generational cliodynamics is a real social dynamic, so many other things take precedence (like social class) that its effect is minimal.

[David Horn]

(01-31-2021, 12:58 AM)mamabug Wrote:

(01-30-2021, 10:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Tea Party is the opposite of "populist," a term that has been horribly deformed into meaning an ignorant populace that favors dictators. That's not its true meaning. Its meaning is a movement to bring power back to the common people. 

You are allowing your dislike of their proposed solutions to color your understanding of what the movement actually involved.  Primarily, it was a reaction against TARP and bailouts of Wall Street paid for by imposing taxes on the independent middle class along with an increasing regulatory burden that benefited big business. Yes, since it is on the right, it tends to take an 'anti taxation' approach but that doesn't turn it into a movement of the elites.   

You could say the difference between the Tea Party and OWS is that the former aspired to become the 1% through their own efforts while the latter sought to make them pay for the systemic advantage they'd been given.  Both had in common the feeling that the system was rigged against the common people and wanted to bring power back to them.  The left through refactoring the system to advantage those they saw as being oppressed and the right by restoring what they saw as the fundamental values that had made the country work.  IMO, neither side was fully right or fully wrong in their proposed solutions.  They also had a lot more in common than either wanted to admit, but in the 3T slide into 4T era it became increasingly difficult for each not to point to one side of American Politics and blame it for all the problems.

Divide and conquer.  There's a reason it's listed in the 36 stratagems.

I agree for the most part, but have to take issue with the Tea Party that the free market is a viable solution to the free market.  I remember the first time I head Carl Icahn argue the greed-is-good mantra.  I knew we were going to be subject to a long period of the rich getting richer and everyone else fighting to stay above water -- and so it has become.  The GOP hates regulation, but has no working alternative.  Trickle-down never does.  Enterprise solutions create a small number of hyper successful and send the bill to the rest.  In short, not one GOP solution has performed -- even a little.  To quote a famous Republican economist Herbert Stein, "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” I suspect that the stopping point has been reached.

[pbrower2a]

(01-31-2021, 10:13 AM)Einzige Wrote: It's always a generational tipping point - 2008 and 2012 and 2016 and 2021....


At some point you concede that, even if generational cliodynamics is a real social dynamic, so many other things take precedence (like social class) that its effect is minimal.

The class struggle is real, and in the recent (are we sure that it is over?) neoliberal era of "profits, profits, over everything" in which the power, indulgence, and gain of economics are the only purposes that those elites allow in the rest of us and which rationalizes itself in "trickle-down theory" is important -- but not everything. Ethnic and religious divides are real as those relate to culture. 

The class struggle can define itself as at the safest for all a quest for dignity among working people and at its riskiest a proletarian revolution that ends with either the elimination of existing elites or the decimation of the working class. Proletarian revolutions like the anti-Baath revolution in Iraq can fail with the gangsters prevailing and killing whatever the top gangster wants killed. In the aftermath of a failed proletarian revolution, the elites can turn workers into outright slaves in concentration camps or replace one set of workers with another set (immigrants who have no political rights).  

There is not and there has never been a true classless society. One reality is the hierarchy of skill; another is the potential for the abuse of power.  I have no problem with the top cardiac surgeon making far more than a hospital orderly. Abuse of power? America is becoming an aristocratic society without titles of nobility, reflecting to some extent the pattern of Southern planters. But even with that, most elites become not only hierarchical but hereditary. I remember when business executives were often former workers who demonstrated that they had much more talent than was necessary for repetitive work on an assembly line.  That is over, or it has at least been over for forty or so years. The Soviet nomenklatura and the executive elite of Corporate America may have been on opposite sides of an ideological divide, but they were much more like each other than they were willing to let people think. They get to live like aristocrats while pretending to stand either for "socialism leading to Communism" or "free enterprise", the latter having an Orwellian twist in which it is enterprise that is free -- to do nasty things to people.

[nguyenivy]

Will the shared experience of being in school & university during the pandemic forcing the switchover to online ed by a generational marker? It seems to match up pretty well as a defining characteristic, so the generation would have birth years around 1998 - 2016 which cuts into the S-H Millennial birth years a bit, with the oldest finishing university about now and the youngest having been in their first year of school last spring when everything switched, and people born after 2016 not remembering either Trump or pandemic (assuming the pandemic ends soon). Given how long this has gone on for, it may make a huge impact down the line, especially with all the resumption & closures going on every so many months. There is bound to be a lot of anxiety around this unstable life from such a young age.

[pbrower2a]

(02-01-2021, 04:25 AM)nguyenivy Wrote: Will the shared experience of being in school & university during the pandemic forcing the switchover to online ed by a generational marker? It seems to match up pretty well as a defining characteristic, so the generation would have birth years around 1998 - 2016 which cuts into the S-H Millennial birth years a bit, with the oldest finishing university about now and the youngest having been in their first year of school last spring when everything switched, and people born after 2016 not remembering either Trump or pandemic (assuming the pandemic ends soon). Given how long this has gone on for, it may make a huge impact down the line, especially with all the resumption & closures going on every so many months. There is bound to be a lot of anxiety around this unstable life from such a young age.

For most people, youth is a succession of coming-of-age experiences that typically appear more or less on schedule. The disruption of education is going to divide youth between those who somehow get some schooling and those who basically flunk who otherwise wouldn't. There will be some ceremonies from first communions to debutante balls put off for a year. Dating will be difficult. 

Shared experiences are the norm for children, and many of them will be put off. Such will divide the Millennial and the Homeland generations.

Childhood experiences are practically butterfly effects in life.

[Einzige]

.  All the graffiti on the plywood covering store windows is now reading F*** Biden!   

[mamabug]

(02-01-2021, 04:25 AM)nguyenivy Wrote: Will the shared experience of being in school & university during the pandemic forcing the switchover to online ed by a generational marker? It seems to match up pretty well as a defining characteristic, so the generation would have birth years around 1998 - 2016 which cuts into the S-H Millennial birth years a bit, with the oldest finishing university about now and the youngest having been in their first year of school last spring when everything switched, and people born after 2016 not remembering either Trump or pandemic (assuming the pandemic ends soon). Given how long this has gone on for, it may make a huge impact down the line, especially with all the resumption & closures going on every so many months. There is bound to be a lot of anxiety around this unstable life from such a young age.

I don't think it will effect those who were in University, the impact of online education on those over 18 is, arguably, less impactful as well as not being as universal experience given that not everyone goes straight to University post-HS.

Those graduating HS this year or later are still in play as being on the Millenial/Zoomer border.  Their lived experience is vastly different from those just one year older.  Greater rates of academic failure, social isolation, depression, suicidal ideation, obesity, child abuse, child hunger, developmental delays, and so on.   This is in addition to the economic instability impacting their families.  

Anecdotal time - I live in a working-to-middle class area that is high immigrant and minority.  My son is a senior at what the district likes to call a 'minority majority school.'   Per him, many of his classmates are either working or desperately trying to find work in order to help keep their families financially solvent.  This was NOT the case just a year ago.  My state has been pretty generous with unemployment, but that is no longer plugging the holes.  IMO, there is a crash coming and we are about to find out it is a lot harder to restart an economy than to shut it down.

[David Horn]

(02-01-2021, 11:17 AM)mamabug Wrote:

(02-01-2021, 04:25 AM)nguyenivy Wrote: Will the shared experience of being in school & university during the pandemic forcing the switchover to online ed by a generational marker? It seems to match up pretty well as a defining characteristic, so the generation would have birth years around 1998 - 2016 which cuts into the S-H Millennial birth years a bit, with the oldest finishing university about now and the youngest having been in their first year of school last spring when everything switched, and people born after 2016 not remembering either Trump or pandemic (assuming the pandemic ends soon). Given how long this has gone on for, it may make a huge impact down the line, especially with all the resumption & closures going on every so many months. There is bound to be a lot of anxiety around this unstable life from such a young age.

I don't think it will effect those who were in University, the impact of online education on those over 18 is, arguably, less impactful as well as not being as universal experience given that not everyone goes straight to University post-HS.

Those graduating HS this year or later are still in play as being on the Millenial/Zoomer border.  Their lived experience is vastly different from those just one year older.  Greater rates of academic failure, social isolation, depression, suicidal ideation, obesity, child abuse, child hunger, developmental delays, and so on.   This is in addition to the economic instability impacting their families.  

Anecdotal time - I live in a working-to-middle class area that is high immigrant and minority.  My son is a senior at what the district likes to call a 'minority majority school.'   Per him, many of his classmates are either working or desperately trying to find work in order to help keep their families financially solvent.  This was NOT the case just a year ago.  My state has been pretty generous with unemployment, but that is no longer plugging the holes.  IMO, there is a crash coming and we are about to find out it is a lot harder to restart an economy than to shut it down.

Yeah, that's the fallacy of Federalism.  States are close to the people (cities even moreso), but it's the Federal government that has the bottomless checkbook.  At the moment, the Dems are shooting for $1.9Trillion, much of it aid to states and cities.  If that fails, this will be a worse version of 2009,with a recovery that only benefits the rich -- again.

[nguyenivy]

(02-01-2021, 11:17 AM)mamabug Wrote:

(02-01-2021, 04:25 AM)nguyenivy Wrote: Will the shared experience of being in school & university during the pandemic forcing the switchover to online ed by a generational marker? It seems to match up pretty well as a defining characteristic, so the generation would have birth years around 1998 - 2016 which cuts into the S-H Millennial birth years a bit, with the oldest finishing university about now and the youngest having been in their first year of school last spring when everything switched, and people born after 2016 not remembering either Trump or pandemic (assuming the pandemic ends soon). Given how long this has gone on for, it may make a huge impact down the line, especially with all the resumption & closures going on every so many months. There is bound to be a lot of anxiety around this unstable life from such a young age.

I don't think it will effect those who were in University, the impact of online education on those over 18 is, arguably, less impactful as well as not being as universal experience given that not everyone goes straight to University post-HS.

Those graduating HS this year or later are still in play as being on the Millenial/Zoomer border.  Their lived experience is vastly different from those just one year older.  Greater rates of academic failure, social isolation, depression, suicidal ideation, obesity, child abuse, child hunger, developmental delays, and so on.   This is in addition to the economic instability impacting their families.  

Anecdotal time - I live in a working-to-middle class area that is high immigrant and minority.  My son is a senior at what the district likes to call a 'minority majority school.'   Per him, many of his classmates are either working or desperately trying to find work in order to help keep their families financially solvent.  This was NOT the case just a year ago.  My state has been pretty generous with unemployment, but that is no longer plugging the holes.  IMO, there is a crash coming and we are about to find out it is a lot harder to restart an economy than to shut it down.

Makes sense that those still in school this school year are having it even harder than last where everyone still had school till the March shutdowns. This school year is an overall mess right from the start. About restarting an economy being even more difficult, another issue there is the number of industries that are reliant on discretionary spending that usually can only happen when economic times are good. Once the pandemic is under control, I expect smaller more local discretionary/recreation stuff to pick up but not the bigger things like international travel until the pandemic is fully in the rearview mirror across the world.

[Einzige]

(02-01-2021, 11:17 AM)mamabug Wrote:

(02-01-2021, 04:25 AM)nguyenivy Wrote: Will the shared experience of being in school & university during the pandemic forcing the switchover to online ed by a generational marker? It seems to match up pretty well as a defining characteristic, so the generation would have birth years around 1998 - 2016 which cuts into the S-H Millennial birth years a bit, with the oldest finishing university about now and the youngest having been in their first year of school last spring when everything switched, and people born after 2016 not remembering either Trump or pandemic (assuming the pandemic ends soon). Given how long this has gone on for, it may make a huge impact down the line, especially with all the resumption & closures going on every so many months. There is bound to be a lot of anxiety around this unstable life from such a young age.

I don't think it will effect those who were in University, the impact of online education on those over 18 is, arguably, less impactful as well as not being as universal experience given that not everyone goes straight to University post-HS.

Those graduating HS this year or later are still in play as being on the Millenial/Zoomer border.  Their lived experience is vastly different from those just one year older.  Greater rates of academic failure, social isolation, depression, suicidal ideation, obesity, child abuse, child hunger, developmental delays, and so on.   This is in addition to the economic instability impacting their families.  

Anecdotal time - I live in a working-to-middle class area that is high immigrant and minority.  My son is a senior at what the district likes to call a 'minority majority school.'   Per him, many of his classmates are either working or desperately trying to find work in order to help keep their families financially solvent.  This was NOT the case just a year ago.  My state has been pretty generous with unemployment, but that is no longer plugging the holes.  IMO, there is a crash coming and we are about to find out it is a lot harder to restart an economy than to shut it down.

Clearly the solution is to deregulate everything, cede more ground to the ruling class, and pray for the end. The small businessman is a God, the haute-bourgeoisie moreover, and their rule must never be questioned. Wage labor is a blessing.

Joe Biden, as Senator from Delaware, represented the credit card industry. He made student loans impossible to discharge in bankruptcy court. He supported the Crime Bill and helped authorize the Patriot Act. And you characterize him as a far leftist because you're dumb.

[mamabug]

(02-01-2021, 12:33 PM)David Horn Wrote: Yeah, that's the fallacy of Federalism.  States are close to the people (cities even moreso), but it's the Federal government that has the bottomless checkbook.  At the moment, the Dems are shooting for $1.9Trillion, much of it aid to states and cities.  If that fails, this will be a worse version of 2009,with a recovery that only benefits the rich -- again.

I wouldn't even say this is a fallacy of Federalism so much as it is a fallacy of thinking there is *any* non-catastrophic way of shutting down an economy for almost a year.  Add to that the typical blind spots of government aid and you are almost guaranteed a recovery that only benefits the rich, just as the lockdowns did.

[David Horn]

(02-02-2021, 12:25 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(02-01-2021, 12:33 PM)David Horn Wrote: Yeah, that's the fallacy of Federalism.  States are close to the people (cities even moreso), but it's the Federal government that has the bottomless checkbook.  At the moment, the Dems are shooting for $1.9Trillion, much of it aid to states and cities.  If that fails, this will be a worse version of 2009,with a recovery that only benefits the rich -- again.

I wouldn't even say this is a fallacy of Federalism so much as it is a fallacy of thinking there is *any* non-catastrophic way of shutting down an economy for almost a year.  Add to that the typical blind spots of government aid and you are almost guaranteed a recovery that only benefits the rich, just as the lockdowns did.

Agreed that the rich have access to tools that make mining any money source easier for them and harder for the rest of us.  That's a very serious but separate problem from getting money to those who need it.  After the slow-as-molasses recovery in 2009, the lack of adequate stimulus funds was obvious to economists of all stripes (except the kooks, of course).  Will getting that right be enough?  Hard to say from this side of the problem, but it's necessary in any case.  Trimming the wings of the Billionaires is needed too.

[Ghost]

(02-01-2021, 04:25 AM)nguyenivy Wrote: Will the shared experience of being in school & university during the pandemic forcing the switchover to online ed by a generational marker? It seems to match up pretty well as a defining characteristic, so the generation would have birth years around 1998 - 2016 which cuts into the S-H Millennial birth years a bit, with the oldest finishing university about now and the youngest having been in their first year of school last spring when everything switched, and people born after 2016 not remembering either Trump or pandemic (assuming the pandemic ends soon). Given how long this has gone on for, it may make a huge impact down the line, especially with all the resumption & closures going on every so many months. There is bound to be a lot of anxiety around this unstable life from such a young age.

If you use a 1998 start date (or late 1997-mid 1998 or HS C/O 2016), the oldest would have actually finished university last year.

I think the "end of Z" really depends on when this pandemic ends.

Ends in 2020-2021 school year? 2015 end date
Ends in 2021-2022 school year? 2016 end date
Ends in 2022-2023 school year? 2017 end date