Grey Champions and the Election of 2016

[Kinser79]

(11-11-2016, 10:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: He is a Grey Chempion only if one of two things apply:

1. The Grey Champion can be evil. Stalin? Trotsky? Antonescu? If President Trump transforms (with the aid of a compliant Congress which serves lobbyists instead of constituents)... Good Lord!

Two problems with this. The first is the assumption that a GC must be "good". S&H labled Hitler as the GC last time round for Germany. I don't think very many people would call him "good" unless they are National Socialists. The second is that Trump is "evil". I've seen very little evil from him. Unpleasant? Maybe. Rude? Certainly. Evil? Not so much. Of the two candidates only one was evil, and SHE lost.

Quote:2. Donald Trump transmutes into a reasonable, decent, humane fellow.

I think that Donald Trump is a reasonable, decent, and humane fellow already. Any and all mentions of him being a ray-cis, or a sexist or a xenophobe or whatever started with his bid for the White House. Prior to that he was just a run of the mill billionaire.

[Kinser79]

(11-11-2016, 04:37 PM)Odin Wrote: I thunk S&H misunderstood the nature of the last 2T by overemphasizing the stereotypical hippie countercultural stuff Eric loves so much, which caused them to completely miss the greater trend the 2T inaugurated, that of increasing popular opposition to everything "establishment", and increasing resentment against having their lives controlled by paternalistic social-engineering. The Counterculture on the Left and the anti-government rage against the "Nanny State" on the Right are one in the same thing, the rejection of the social trends of the Great Power Saeculum, which had favored increasing centralization and control of society by technocrats.

The Millennial Saeculum can be summed up by "I am not a number, I am a free man!"

I believe Odin is on to something.

[Warren Dew]

(11-12-2016, 02:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The elites are the corporate world and the wealthy.

At least you're willing to give me a straight answer.

What I really want is an answer from Mikebert, though, since he's the one who thinks they have to be destroyed for the fourth turning to end.  I'm pretty sure that you consider enough people to be elites that many of your elites will survive (e.g., S corporations and many mere millionaires).

[Kinser79]

(11-12-2016, 02:43 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: It's pointless to talk about elites and give a bunch of examples that are irrelevant to today's world.  If we're going to talk about then, we should be able to identify them in today's world, either by name or with a clear definition that can be applied to individual circumstances.  If we don't know who they are, we can't even know when they're brought down, so the idea that the fourth turning can't end until that happens has no meaning.

Warren, I don't know how many years you've circulated around this and the old forum.  If you are new...well welcome.  If not, then you probably should already know that PBR only posts the same crap over and over.  You see, he's one of those educated liberals who being educated has forgotten how to think for himself.  As such he posts the same memorized drivel over and over.  

If you want names...I have a few that need to be taken out and shot.

George Soros,
The CEOs of Google as they've been using their platform to skew results against GOP candidates amongst other things,
Mark Zuckerberg since he's been cozying up to Merkle and you don't want to get me started on her,
the MSM
SJWs and professors who miseducate those SJWs

This list still needs work.

[Mikebert]

(11-11-2016, 04:06 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I got the pepperland reference.  I get most of the references that Eric gets, and he's in at least the middle of the boomer cohort, rather than trailing edge.

I think the relevant cultural movements are a characteristic of the awakening; they aren't necessarily brought to full fruition in the crisis.  Was England in the 1040s pining for Norman rule?  I don't think that's how it works.

I think the grey champion concept is an after the fact romanticization - notice how the original one was anonymous - so talking about it as if it necessarily fits the leader at the peak of the crisis is questionable.

Still interested in your thoughts on who the elites are.  Presumably that's not going to change between now and 10 years from now if they aren't taken down in the meantime.

AS far as I can figure, grey champions don't actual occur until the modern cycle, what Sean Love called saeculum II.  If you look at the turning length you will see a string ca 27 year turnings (saeculum I) and then a series of ca. 20 year ones (saeculum II). The original one is an apocryphal figure because there couldn't really be GCs in saeculum I; they would be too old.

S&H give a rather hazy description of how their cycle works.  Using their material from the appendix in Generations gives a mechanism that doesn't work.  It is possible to come up with a model that works and which is based on some of the concepts they discussed. This model holds that leaders in 4T's come of age in 2Ts.   S&H's grey champion which refers to people playing a stewardship role in a 4T had become conflated with leadership since two of the six examples of GCs given were presidents (note that Washington, the central leader of the 4T, was NOT a GC).

The model actually has prophets (defined as those who come of age in a 2T) as leaders in a 4T, so it actually calls for GCs, except there are lots of them.  S&H do talk about how religious issues feed into the 4T:  The abolition movement arising out of the Transcendental 2T called for Emancipation which was made reality in the Civil War 4T.  The social gospel arising out of the Missionary 2T, called for a more compassionate approach to the working class poor, which came to fruition during the Depression 4T. We are running out of time for such a link between this 4T and the previous 2T.


Elites are actually a sociological quantity. It refers to a polities "ruling class". During Medieval times one could pretty much peg them as the King, the Privy Council and members of Parliament.  As the society got more complex it becomes a larger and more diffuse category.  In the models elites refers to "elite number" e which stands for elites/population and is calculated from inequality defined as "worker fraction" (wf) the fraction of output that goes to workers:

de/dt = mu(WF0/wf-1) where mu and WF0 are adjustable constants.

Turchin uses relative wage (w) defined as wage/GDPpc in place of wf.  I use a more sophisticated definition for wf that includes slavery.  If you simplify wf it reduces to w.


Elite data is hard to get.  In medieval times you could use numbers of peers, but after industrialization this is obviously useless.  Turchin uses fraction of rich people in the population as a proxy for e.  Obviously you don't have to be very rich to be a member of the ruling class (neither Clinton nor Obama were all that rich when they became president).  But Clinton is now very rich and Obama soon will be.  Nonrich folks who become elites tend to get rich. 


The very fact that you are rich means you have more interests that can be implemented by state policies and historical events, so you have to have an interest in these things, making you and elite: And if you are rich enough and have enough interests you will have to hire someone to monitor policy and act on your behalf (i.e. a lobbyist) which is another elite.    So there is going to be correlation between elites and rich people making the latter a proxy for the former.

There are all sorts of elites. Business owners create elite actors (corporations) who act in their stead as a way to protect themselves from culpability for adverse effects of their business.  Workers can pool their resources to create elite actors (e.g. labor unions, grange halls) who then petition corporations and other elite institutions.  Folks like Markos Moulitsas or Erick Erricson founded web sites that made them elites.  Obviously leaders of major institutions would be elites, and many more.

[Warren Dew]

Thanks, Kinser. I am new, and I did have that figured out.

Your list is pretty concrete, thanks.

[Mikebert]

Warren:  Reduction in elite number (e)  does not necessarily imply physical removal of elites such as happened win the Norman Invasion and Wars of the Roses.  It could also happen by the confiscation of wealth such that which happened with Emancipation or the heavy taxation and inflation associated with the World Wars, and the post-WW II period.

It could also happen by dilution.  The 1066 crisis was also one for the Normans, which was solved by conquering England, eliminating the Saxons and spreading out over both Normandy and England/  The numbers of Norman elites did not fall, but e (elite/population) did because they were now "diluted" into a big area. The same thing happened with the Revolution, the British had prevented westward expansion.  After the war Americans did to the Indians what the Normans did to the Saxons.

The glorious revolution 4T is another example of dilution.  In the latter part of the 17th century real per capita GDP began to rise after having been flat for centuries. This reflected the development of new economic sectors into which excess elites could spread diluting them into a larger economy.  This mechanism is no longer available in an industrial capitalist economy because the development of new economic sectors is usually done by entrepreneurs coming from non-elite or lesser elites, who then are promoted to elites.  Elites are created along with the larger economy resulting in no dilution.

[Warren Dew]

I may need to provide a fuller response later. That said, and with the caveat that I haven't gone through his actual equations yet, I don't necessarily buy Turchin style evaluations of the elites.

That kind of formulation just begs the question of why too many elites cause a problem. In my opinion, the answer is almost certainly that the problem is caused when the concentration of wealth and power gets to the point where oligopolies undermine market efficiency.

[Mikebert]

(11-12-2016, 09:56 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I may need to provide a fuller response later.  That said, and with the caveat that I haven't gone through his actual equations yet, I don't necessarily buy Turchin style evaluations of the elites.

That kind of formulation just begs the question of why too many elites cause a problem.  In my opinion, the answer is almost certainly that the problem is caused when the concentration of wealth and power gets to the point where oligopolies undermine market efficiency.

Too many elites don't cause the underlying problem.  That is economic inequality.  The proximate cause is too many elites. Too many elites lead to elite conflict, e.g. the high degree of polarity and the inability to compromise and that makes solving the underlying problem difficult.

The secular cycle is long, in agrarian times it spanned multiple saecula.  In modern times one.  The problem I am referring to is that resolved in secular restructuring that is characteristic of the 4T, a period that spans a single turning.  For example the 400 year Plantagenet cycle when into secular cycle crisis mode around 1310.  It was finally "solved" in the brief 30 year Wars of the Roses, which constitutes a 4T. The 4T problem to be resolved was excess elites.  The underlying problem was internal instability because of war among elites and the state that occurred in waves (the instability under Edward II which led to his death, the instability under Richard II, which led to his death ad replacement by his cousin, who then faced a decade of civil war, and finally the Wars of the Roses. This final episode solved the problem of all these elite-fueled internal wars by killing off excess elites.

For the last 4T, the problem was rising inequality that produced political-economic problems resulting in changes in business practice (development of marketing as a discipline), in financial markets (the beginning of large scale secular stockmarket cycles, increased sociopolitical turmoil leading to immigration restriction, and finally the 29 crash and depression that induced the 1932 critical election, followed by the New Deal and WW II economic policies that explicly reduced inequality, ending the underlying problems.  Falling elite number prevented an effective reaction against this, preventing the problem from reasserting itself.

[Eric the Green]

(11-12-2016, 04:04 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 02:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The elites are the corporate world and the wealthy.

At least you're willing to give me a straight answer.

What I really want is an answer from Mikebert, though, since he's the one who thinks they have to be destroyed for the fourth turning to end.  I'm pretty sure that you consider enough people to be elites that many of your elites will survive (e.g., S corporations and many mere millionaires).

Ideally, elites don't have to be destroyed. The entire issue is that their power needs to be much reduced. That entails reduction in their wealth, since wealth is power. Wealth is a political/social program enforced by the government. It should be regulated by it, or it is simply turning over our society to its most powerful citizens for their benefit at our expense. Obviously, the earliest this can happen is in the 2020s.

[Mikebert]

(11-14-2016, 12:03 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Just like the 3T went on, and on, and on, it looks like the 4T will as well.

It isn't a matter of working out well or not. Modern 4Ts have a causative factor.  If the factor is still present the 4T keeps on going and going until it no longer is.  The theory I am working off is the Demographic Structural Theory as applied to secular cycles by Peter Turchin. Assuming that my analysis of three rather than two American secular cycles is correct, then the secular cycle and the saeculum are essentially the same cycle.  Secular cycles/saeculum get resolved in the depression phase/secular crisis, after which a new secular cycle/saeculum beginning. This resolution is triggered by high sociopolitical stress, which is why 4Ts feel like 4Ts.  Using Turchin's ideas, sociopolitical stress is driven by inequality.  In the past high stress has eventually brought about external invasion (Norman Conquest, Glorious Revolution), Civil War (Wars of the Roses, American Revolution, US Civil War) or economic collapse (Depression & WW II). 

So far the economy has made two attempts to collapse, both of which were stopped by the economic authorities. The first attempt was after 911, the Fed was easily able to thwart it by slashing interest rates. The underlying problem (rising inequality) was not fixed, and this "solution" turned out to be a bandaid. What they did was stoke a bubble in real estate.  The economy made a second attempt at collapse in 2008.  Again economic policy makers rode out to meet the enemy, and they managed to stave off collapse.  But the Fed exhausted their ammo.  Today, as the business cycle is turning 9, interest rates remain at levels normally used only in the depths of a serious recession.  The government which had been running a surplus before 2002 and had lots of reserve borrowing capacity (recall Gore's "lockbox") spent it all on reckless wars ad tax cuts, and on anti-depression policies.  The Fed printed trillions of dollars to bail out financial interests, leaving a huge mass of "effective money" which will show up as inflation if the economy ever does come back to trend growth.  The result is another huge bubble, this time in stocks.

If this analysis is correct the economy will try to collapse a third time.  This time it will be Trump's turn to try and stop it. If he fails we wfinally get our regeneracy.  If he succeeds the 4T will drag on.  Baring civil war or revolution the 4T can, I suppose, go on for the rest of our lives. Each time a regeneracy tries to happen, the economic authorities will step up and somehow prevent it. It's not like once the Boomers pass from the scene it will be over. The country will still be in the same shape as before and rich, elite Gex Xers will be no more willing to accept less of the brass ring than the boomers before them.

This is an important observation.  Generational effects are only apparent under the right conditions.  I work with Millennial, Xer and Boomer chemical engineers and scientists.  There really isn't any difference between us.  The traits that make us engineers and scientists outweigh any generational effects.  On the other hand, I knew working class boomers (kids I grew up with and went to school with).  And I know working class millennials (my grandkids and the people they get romantically involved with).  Working class Boomers and Millennials ARE different in ways that Engineer Boomers and Millennials are not.

In other words, for generations to matter, the right environmental conditions are necessary.  Working class folks are feeling the effects of the stress and so they manifest generational behaviors.  Elites have not yet felt the effects and so all generations will defend elite prerogatives equally.  If the economy collapses, then they will start to show generational behavior.

[pbrower2a]

(11-14-2016, 12:03 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 04:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Mikebert gets it a little wrong, assuming again that a 4T is supposed to work out well, and a new consciousness is put into practice in the 4T. That is how it works if a 4T is successful. But we have decided at least for now to make it unsuccessful. Trump's election guarantees that. The "new consciousness" was split, and the faction coming into charge now (again) is represented by Ronald Reagan's speech for Goldwater in 1964. So, there's a fight between all the factions aroused since the 2T. Who wins is not clear at this point. But it certainly fits the definition of a crisis, for sure. Strauss and Howe are vindicated to that extent. The battle is on, and both astrology and the double rhythm seaculum theory confirm that this is Civil War II. We're on our way.

Just as you guys said, the danger of more economic collapse has been heightened. That's a crisis. I give you credit; my optimism may have been wrong. A regeneracy does not have to look like it did in 1933. It may look like it did in 1861, after more than a decade of trouble and evasion. And if we are declining, as almost everybody here but me has been saying up until now, then the regeneracy does not have to be progressive or positive at all. It could well be 1933, but 1933 in Nazi Germany. Make American Great Again! Down we go.

The Boomers are going to be in their 70s or above in the 2020s. It's hard to believe. Some of us will still be around, and it only takes one to emerge to keep the GC myth alive. It doesn't have to come from the up and coming ones either. But who knows. What seems sure is that the fights and ideas surrounding the 2T are not only still around, they have been heightened. The social justice issues are back and the maligned SJWs are now out in force, as politically correct as ever. The environment will be under assault as never before, and the issues of war and peace are front and center. Poverty is increasing as the oligarchy reigns. All the issues of the 2T remain unresolved. The fight is on. So it doesn't matter if the boomers are leading the battles or not. The issues remain the same. The attacks and defenses between Amerikkka and its protesters is the same game as in 1968. And the same materialism, lack of sensitivity, lack of spirituality is behind it all; the root of Amerikkka's sickness. So Pepperland is still at issue too, whether the original Pepperlanders are still around or not. Just as the original Reaganoids are not around now, but his ideology still predominates. The mistakes of our neglect will force some people to look anew at the materialist wasteland in all its aspects. I may be wrong, but severe sickness demands a cure, and some people will look for it. And it's been put out there for anyone who looks. The issues are still the issues, and Trump has brought them all back for the 4T's duration.

Just like the 3T went on, and on, and on, it looks like the 4T will as well.

Although there is now a leveling off, longevity went way up between the end of WW2 and just a few years ago. Boomers ain't riding off into the sunset yet. There are still many opportunities for Gray Champions or collections of people who fill that role. This is especially true for Disco Boomers.

The last Boomers turn 70 in 2030. It could take that long.

...As shown in the Confederacy, Germany, and Japan a 4T can go catastrophically badly with ruin of the economy, complete dissolution of the political order, and even loss of independence. And don't let me get into a discussion of Russia from the Bolshevik Revolution to the end of the Great Patriotic War or China in the Pacific War and the Communist Revolution. Sure, that can't happen to America, can it?

Wrong! Several countries have nuclear weapons and ICBMs. The only safe places in America in the event of a nuclear exchange will be places of neither military not economic significance. Political leadership in some other country will not allow their people to be turned into serfs or slaves. How many American losses can one expect in World War III?

During World War II, political polarization all but disappeared. If political polarization should disappear during the next four years in America it will be most likely because one side crushes any organized opposition.

So far I see no tendency toward conciliation by Donald Trump except to tell Democrats to support his authoritarian nightmare so that they can have some say on small things such as the routing of a highway.  I doubt that Americans are going to take a dictatorial President and a stooge Congress lying down. We already have many protests and demonstrations. Just because one has a shaky mandate (winning the electoral vote but not the popular vote) does not mean that one has a mandate for tyranny.

If one dislikes Donald Trump and his policies, then we have a model to emulate -- the heroic struggle for African-American civil rights. All 50 states this time.

[Warren Dew]

(11-13-2016, 04:55 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 09:56 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I may need to provide a fuller response later.  That said, and with the caveat that I haven't gone through his actual equations yet, I don't necessarily buy Turchin style evaluations of the elites.

That kind of formulation just begs the question of why too many elites cause a problem.  In my opinion, the answer is almost certainly that the problem is caused when the concentration of wealth and power gets to the point where oligopolies undermine market efficiency.

Too many elites don't cause the underlying problem.  That is economic inequality.  The proximate cause is too many elites. Too many elites lead to elite conflict, e.g. the high degree of polarity and the inability to compromise and that makes solving the underlying problem difficult.

To clarify, when I say "cause" here, I include "proximately cause".  In fact, I'm skeptical of being able to determine the number of elites at all, since the dividing line between elites and nonelites is pretty fuzzy in modern societies.  I do think the balance between elites and nonelites, or rather wealth inequality in some measure, is the primary relevant factor.

I suspect a simpler model than Turchin's would be better.  But, I haven't gone through all of the equations yet.

[Warren Dew]

(11-17-2016, 06:19 PM)Mikebert Wrote: This is an important observation.  Generational effects are only apparent under the right conditions.  I work with Millennial, Xer and Boomer chemical engineers and scientists.  There really isn't any difference between us.  The traits that make us engineers and scientists outweigh any generational effects.  On the other hand, I knew working class boomers (kids I grew up with and went to school with).  And I know working class millennials (my grandkids and the people they get romantically involved with).  Working class Boomers and Millennials ARE different in ways that Engineer Boomers and Millennials are not.

In other words, for generations to matter, the right environmental conditions are necessary.  Working class folks are feeling the effects of the stress and so they manifest generational behaviors.  Elites have not yet felt the effects and so all generations will defend elite prerogatives equally.  If the economy collapses, then they will start to show generational behavior.

I work with boomer, X, and millenial software engineers.  There's a huge distinction between boomers and millenials.  Boomers prefer to work by themselves, preferably in enclosed offices, figuring things out in solitude.  Millenials prefer an open environment where they get help or collaborate at any moment.

I suppose just as the working class is under stress from illegal immigrants, software engineers are under stress from H1b immigrants.  I don't think that's all there is to it, though.

I agree with the earlier parts of your post.  Inequality reached the apparent maximum sustainable levels around 2000 just as they did around 1930.  As in 1930, the elites are holding things together so far.  In 1940, foreign war relieved the inequality for the cycle.  We don't yet know how that's going to go this cycle.

Rather than just holding things together, Trump might be better off starting a war of the industrial elites against the financial elites.  If successful, it could reduce inequality enough to move into a new cycle.

[Warren Dew]

(11-17-2016, 08:22 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...As shown in the Confederacy, Germany, and Japan a 4T can go catastrophically badly with ruin of the economy, complete dissolution of the political order, and even loss of independence. And don't let me get into a discussion of Russia from the Bolshevik Revolution to the end of the Great Patriotic War or China in the Pacific War and the Communist Revolution. Sure, that can't happen to America, can it?

Germany and Japan were run by reactives.  I think if boom leaders keep things hobbling along long enough for reactives to take power in critical places, the reactives can probably start a war that they can't finish.

[Eric the Green]

(11-17-2016, 10:00 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-17-2016, 08:22 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 12:03 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 04:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Mikebert gets it a little wrong, assuming again that a 4T is supposed to work out well, and a new consciousness is put into practice in the 4T. That is how it works if a 4T is successful. But we have decided at least for now to make it unsuccessful. Trump's election guarantees that. The "new consciousness" was split, and the faction coming into charge now (again) is represented by Ronald Reagan's speech for Goldwater in 1964. So, there's a fight between all the factions aroused since the 2T. Who wins is not clear at this point. But it certainly fits the definition of a crisis, for sure. Strauss and Howe are vindicated to that extent. The battle is on, and both astrology and the double rhythm seaculum theory confirm that this is Civil War II. We're on our way.

Just as you guys said, the danger of more economic collapse has been heightened. That's a crisis. I give you credit; my optimism may have been wrong. A regeneracy does not have to look like it did in 1933. It may look like it did in 1861, after more than a decade of trouble and evasion. And if we are declining, as almost everybody here but me has been saying up until now, then the regeneracy does not have to be progressive or positive at all. It could well be 1933, but 1933 in Nazi Germany. Make American Great Again! Down we go.

The Boomers are going to be in their 70s or above in the 2020s. It's hard to believe. Some of us will still be around, and it only takes one to emerge to keep the GC myth alive. It doesn't have to come from the up and coming ones either. But who knows. What seems sure is that the fights and ideas surrounding the 2T are not only still around, they have been heightened. The social justice issues are back and the maligned SJWs are now out in force, as politically correct as ever. The environment will be under assault as never before, and the issues of war and peace are front and center. Poverty is increasing as the oligarchy reigns. All the issues of the 2T remain unresolved. The fight is on. So it doesn't matter if the boomers are leading the battles or not. The issues remain the same. The attacks and defenses between Amerikkka and its protesters is the same game as in 1968. And the same materialism, lack of sensitivity, lack of spirituality is behind it all; the root of Amerikkka's sickness. So Pepperland is still at issue too, whether the original Pepperlanders are still around or not. Just as the original Reaganoids are not around now, but his ideology still predominates. The mistakes of our neglect will force some people to look anew at the materialist wasteland in all its aspects. I may be wrong, but severe sickness demands a cure, and some people will look for it. And it's been put out there for anyone who looks. The issues are still the issues, and Trump has brought them all back for the 4T's duration.

Just like the 3T went on, and on, and on, it looks like the 4T will as well.

Although there is now a leveling off, longevity went way up between the end of WW2 and just a few years ago. Boomers ain't riding off into the sunset yet. There are still many opportunities for Gray Champions or collections of people who fill that role. This is especially true for Disco Boomers.

The last Boomers turn 70 in 2030. It could take that long.

...As shown in the Confederacy, Germany, and Japan a 4T can go catastrophically badly with ruin of the economy, complete dissolution of the political order, and even loss of independence. And don't let me get into a discussion of Russia from the Bolshevik Revolution to the end of the Great Patriotic War or China in the Pacific War and the Communist Revolution. Sure, that can't happen to America, can it?

Wrong! Several countries have nuclear weapons and ICBMs. The only safe places in America in the event of a nuclear exchange will be places of neither military not economic significance. Political leadership in some other country will not allow their people to be turned into serfs or slaves. How many American losses can one expect in World War III?

During World War II, political polarization all but disappeared. If political polarization should disappear during the next four years in America it will be most likely because one side crushes any organized opposition.

So far I see no tendency toward conciliation by Donald Trump except to tell Democrats to support his authoritarian nightmare so that they can have some say on small things such as the routing of a highway.  I doubt that Americans are going to take a dictatorial President and a stooge Congress lying down. We already have many protests and demonstrations. Just because one has a shaky mandate (winning the electoral vote but not the popular vote) does not mean that one has a mandate for tyranny.

If one dislikes Donald Trump and his policies, then we have a model to emulate -- the heroic struggle for African-American civil rights. All 50 states this time.

And we have the 2nd Amendment. Mark these words, the "cosmopolitan" factions of the Left will come to love the 2nd Amendment. Those of us who are stocking up on weapons and ammo would gladly share with any who are motivated, if something like a Quisling scenario were to arise. There would be no political litmus test, as some things "trump" polity.

The scenario I see, is if CA's sane laws are over-ruled by Trump, and CA resists, and Trump tries to enforce his and his congress' edicts, and CA refuses, and then Trump invades, then CA will need to resist as a state, organize an army, defend our borders from the invader. We'll need an entire army, and maybe get some WMDs from North Korea or somewhere, anywhere....

[pbrower2a]

(11-17-2016, 09:56 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-17-2016, 08:22 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...As shown in the Confederacy, Germany, and Japan a 4T can go catastrophically badly with ruin of the economy, complete dissolution of the political order, and even loss of independence. And don't let me get into a discussion of Russia from the Bolshevik Revolution to the end of the Great Patriotic War or China in the Pacific War and the Communist Revolution. Sure, that can't happen to America, can it?

Germany and Japan were run by reactives.  I think if boom leaders keep things hobbling along long enough for reactives to take power in critical places, the reactives can probably start a war that they can't finish.

But Idealists can be nasty, too. In the Devil's Reich, Hitler had the legal butchers Wilhelm Frick and Otto Thierack -- and the man who practically transformed the Wehrmacht into the Nazi Army, Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel. The medical researcher Dr. Klaus Schilling would be hanged for barbarous medical experiments upon inmates of concentration camps. Romania had its Conducator Ion Antonescu, who allowed the slaughter of Jews in Moldavia and Transnistria. Thug Japan's Matsuoka was Prime Minister, and General Koki Hirota was in charge in Shanghai  during the Massacre of Shanghai.

[Warren Dew]

(11-18-2016, 09:01 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-17-2016, 09:56 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-17-2016, 08:22 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...As shown in the Confederacy, Germany, and Japan a 4T can go catastrophically badly with ruin of the economy, complete dissolution of the political order, and even loss of independence. And don't let me get into a discussion of Russia from the Bolshevik Revolution to the end of the Great Patriotic War or China in the Pacific War and the Communist Revolution. Sure, that can't happen to America, can it?

Germany and Japan were run by reactives.  I think if boom leaders keep things hobbling along long enough for reactives to take power in critical places, the reactives can probably start a war that they can't finish.

But Idealists can be nasty, too. In the Devil's Reich, Hitler had the legal butchers Wilhelm Frick and Otto Thierack -- and the man who practically transformed the Wehrmacht into the Nazi Army, Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel. The medical researcher Dr. Klaus Schilling would be hanged for barbarous medical experiments upon inmates of concentration camps. Romania had its Conducator Ion Antonescu, who allowed the slaughter of Jews in Moldavia and Transnistria. Thug Japan's Matsuoka was Prime Minister, and General Koki Hirota was in charge in Shanghai  during the Massacre of Shanghai.

Oh, absolutely.  Stalin was as nasty as Hitler or Tojo.

Nastiness isn't what causes people to start wars that they can't finish, though.  Rather, miscalculation is.  Hitler started WWII in Europe to fix his immediate problems - basically a need to shore up domestic support - without fully accounting for possible long term effects.

[Mikebert]

Warren Dew Wrote:Inequality reached the apparent maximum sustainable levels around 2000 just as they did around 1930.

 
Inequality has continued to trend up since 2000 up 7% and 10% from 2000 levels in 2010 and 2015, respectively.
 

Warren Wrote:In 1940, foreign war relieved the inequality for the cycle.

It wasn’t the war.  We had foreign war in WW I too, its affect on inequality was temporary. Inequality had peaked in 1926, dipped 16% into 1920, and had risen back in 1928.  It would have gone higher by the stock market crash intervened.  No it was what was done in WW II and afterward that was different from what was done after WW I that caused inequality to undergo long decline.

Quote:..Trump might be better off starting a war of the industrial elites against the financial elites. 

I doubt it, seeing as he is one of those financial elites.  The man isn’t an industrialist, he makes deals, mostly financial ones.

[Warren Dew]

(11-18-2016, 12:31 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

Warren Dew Wrote:Inequality reached the apparent maximum sustainable levels around 2000 just as they did around 1930.

 
Inequality has continued to trend up since 2000 up 7% and 10% from 2000 levels in 2010 and 2015, respectively.

Inequality trended up fairly smoothly in the 1980s and 1990s.  Since 2000, it was bounced around at a high level.  There was a peak in 2000, another peak in 2007, etc.  More recent peaks have been slightly higher but there is no longer a general upward trend.

I'm surprised if your measure of inequality doesn't catch these details.

Quote:

Warren Wrote:In 1940, foreign war relieved the inequality for the cycle.

It wasn’t the war.  We had foreign war in WW I too, its affect on inequality was temporary. Inequality had peaked in 1926, dipped 16% into 1920, and had risen back in 1928.  It would have gone higher by the stock market crash intervened.  No it was what was done in WW II and afterward that was different from what was done after WW I that caused inequality to undergo long decline.

US participation in WWI was not at the level of an existential war, as WWII was.  They were two completely different things from the US standpoint.  WWII was a crisis war for the US; WWI was not, any more than the Vietnam War or the Gulf War were.

The stock market crash was not an exogenous event that just happened to affect inequality.  It was an endogenous effect with a random trigger.  The high inequality levels had set things up for a crash.  The crash did much of the redistribution from the top 1% to the rest of the top 10%, and WWII then redistributed to the remainder of the population.

Quote:

Quote:..Trump might be better off starting a war of the industrial elites against the financial elites. 

I doubt it, seeing as he is one of those financial elites.  The man isn’t an industrialist, he makes deals, mostly financial ones.

Trump owns actual property like the industrialists.  That makes his situation much more like theirs than it is with those that deal primarily in financial instruments like stocks and bonds.