Poll: Is Donald Trump the GC? And how does this effect your vote?
Yes, he is the GC, and I'm voting for him.
No he is not the GC, but I'm voting for him.
Yes he is the GC but I'm voting Democrat.
No he is not the GC but I'm voting Democrat.
Yes, he is the GC, but I'm voting Third Party
No, he is not the GC, but I'm voting Third Party
Yes, he is the GC but I'm not voting
No he is not the GC but I'm not voting
[Show Results]
 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Grey Champions and the Election of 2016
(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.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(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.
Reply
(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.
Reply
I have studied with xers and millies. Millies do the open environment group table and xers grab a table and move it away from everyone else. Such emos. It confused everyone in the group table. Like we insulted the xers or something. I did not think we were that distracting. We asked if they were ok. Apparently they were... :/
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
(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.
Reply
(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....
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(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.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(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.
Reply
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.
Reply
(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.
Reply
Hi everyone, I'm new here. 

I read the book back when it came out, and came back to the theory recently with the American election. 

I've enjoyed catching up on all these great threads, but I can't help notice how partisan many of them seem to be. I prefer to take a big picture view. 

I could see Trump as the GC, but we'll have to wait for things to shake out. 

We had Trump, Bernie and Clinton, all candidates for the GC moniker. Bernie is still a player FWIW and could save the Dem party from what looks like certain death. 

I think fear of Trump is exaggerated, and fear of Clinton underestimated. 

In any case, there was no good choice and both paths lead to increased division. 

I see the 2T issues roaring back in this 4T. Half the boomers didn't buy into the peace-love thing. And the ones that did weren't grounded in reality. 

We will need a resolution of this culture war, and I hope it is through working together with mutual respect. 

I see this coming through the progressive Dems working together with elements on the right to reshape the two parties and ignore the bigoted, angry and divisive rhetoric from both establishments.
Reply
I am tempted to see Donald Trump as a Grey Anti-Champion. Even before the inauguration he does much that worsens the political climate by becoming even more divisive and choosing to select almost entirely from among extremists. He has done nothing to tone down the white-supremacist rhetoric just short of KKK bigotry. His "my way or the highway" approach that one can tolerate in the private sector because there is always some other possible employer cannot be done at a national level because changing citizenship is not easy in either administrative or personal terms.

He begins with a very bad honeymoon. It might not be like the white bride announcing to her bigoted husband that she is already pregnant by a black man or a husband telling his naive wife that he is a compulsive gambler who smuggles drugs to finance his bad habit and expects her to become a mule in the drug trade... That's when parents get a call from a bus station in the middle of nowhere asking to get the offended or endangered spouse out of the situation. Things are not starting well. He has less than even a plurality support in the popular vote, and he acts as if he is the only possible focus of political support.

He begins badly by recent standards:

Favorable Ratings of Recent Presidents-Elect


Donald Trump    2016 Nov 9-13    42 55
Barack Obama    2008 Nov 7-9      68 27
George W. Bush 2000 Dec 15-17  59 36
Bill Clinton           1992 Nov 10-11  58 35 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/197576/trump-...aign=tiles

Dubya may have proved to be one of the worse Presidents in American history, but that assessment is only after the fact (two bungled wars, and an economic meltdown that might have been even more devastating had it not been for the military spending). But he started out about as popular as Bill Clinton did. Like Trump this year, Dubya also won the Presidency despite losing the electoral vote. He still started out far more popular than Donald Trump -- perhaps because he did not express ethnic and religious bigotry and did not show early signs of a dictatorial style of administration.

 Donald Trump has no political capital except the power that he wields or is allowed to wield. It will be difficult (if not impossible) for him to mend ways with people that he smeared on grounds of ethnicity or religion. He made contradictory and thus incompatible promises to usually-hostile parts of the electorate to get elected, and he will have to choose one to betray one group of people to whom he made promises to satisfy others. Just think of what that will do to approval ratings. He has chosen to surround himself with abrasive extremists, people who completely deny any the validity of the opinion of anyone who has any divergence in opinion. Such people demand blind loyalty from a People not accustomed to showing blind loyalty to a leader and his immediate subordinates who order the People about.

Of course, it is possible that the President will force his agenda along with the aid of an obedient Congress because the Republican party is now an authoritarian right-wing Party with no room for dissent on substantive issues, especially if the Republicans remove the filibuster in the Senate. Then the United States of America becomes effectively a dominant-Party state in which the political minority is rendered irrelevant. Perhaps with Congress enacting legislation that criminalizes dissent, establishes a secret police (an internal equivalent of the CIA), or controls the Democratic Party, America might have a political system in which political lockstep creates an efficient political system that gets things done -- if not with much concern for public opinion.

Even so, a recent Gallup poll shows that although the current President has an approval rating of 56% after starting having an approval rating of 62% in February 2009. To be sure, any President will have some ups and downs, and President Obama has had an approval rating as low as 40%. Of course there will be events, including legislative failures and international scrapes. But 40% is as low as it went for Obama.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup...roval.aspx

Should there be a free election in America for the Presidency in 2020, then Americans will have much nostalgia for Barack Obama, and the Democratic nominee who most reminds America of the Obama who won decisively in 2008 will get the nomination and will win in a landslide, winning states that Republicans just do not win. The urban-rural and the regional divides will remain -- and perhaps even intensify. But Americans will be sick of 'reckless', 'abrasive', 'extremist', and 'dictatorial', and what follows Donald Trump could be the Grey Champion.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
Republican pols have pushed a culture rich in firearms, and now Donald Trump throws ethnic and religious bigotry onto a country awash in privately-owned, unregistered and unregulated firearms. Why does that sound dangerous?

A hint: for all its repression, the Soviet Union was fairly permissive about firearms. When it broke apart such places as Chechnya, South Ossetia, and Nagorno-Karabach became rife with gun violence.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
(11-20-2016, 10:01 PM)2Legit2Quit Wrote: Hi everyone, I'm new here. 

I read the book back when it came out, and came back to the theory recently with the American election. 

I've enjoyed catching up on all these great threads, but I can't help notice how partisan many of them seem to be. I prefer to take a big picture view. 

I could see Trump as the GC, but we'll have to wait for things to shake out. 

We had Trump, Bernie and Clinton, all candidates for the GC moniker. Bernie is still a player FWIW and could save the Dem party from what looks like certain death. 

I think fear of Trump is exaggerated, and fear of Clinton underestimated. 

In any case, there was no good choice and both paths lead to increased division. 

I see the 2T issues roaring back in this 4T. Half the boomers didn't buy into the peace-love thing. And the ones that did weren't grounded in reality. 

We will need a resolution of this culture war, and I hope it is through working together with mutual respect. 

I see this coming through the progressive Dems working together with elements on the right to reshape the two parties and ignore the bigoted, angry and divisive rhetoric from both establishments.

Welcome to the fray. Yes, I don't know if the people here are "partisan," but certainly opinionated, sometimes extreme and rather stuck. There may be some lurking readers who are less so.

We don't really know how much our fear of Trump is exaggerated, but the basis for such fear is very substantial, both before and since the election. The swing state, rust-belt voters simply ignored his total lack of qualifications and his right-wing passions. Now he has appointed noone but racist hotheads so far. It is certainly the fear of Hillary Clinton that was exaggerated out of all reasonable proportion, to the point where these voters had no idea at all of whom they were voting against. Not only was there was no basis for the corruption and even more ludicrous "criminal" charges against her, but none either for the fears that she was a warmonger. Now, instead of a professional and knowledgeable commander in chief and a compassionate leader, we have a temperamental, selfish, corrupt, uninformed deceiver and expert marketer of prejudice and fear. Shame on Americans.

The culture war has been reignited by the installation of this bigot in the White House, and continued GOPPER dominance guarantees NO progress that could ease social and economic tensions and resentments. Increased division is guaranteed, but after all, such is what I have predicted for decades now to occur in this era.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(11-18-2016, 01:12 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(11-18-2016, 02:02 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(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: 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....

Eric we have our own WMD, no need to get from any where else.

Without getting into the nuts and bolts of it (e.g. never show one's entire hand) we have ICBM design and build, aircraft design and build, as well as warhead pit design and build. The other parts needed would be a no brainer given the existing talent plus corporate not to mention .edu and .gov facilities we already have.

How do I know this? Again, without getting into too many details, I previously mentioned I am a 3rd generation techie. All three generations have worked with various aspects of what I wrote up above, at some point in our careers. Further hint ... think of where we live and consider what is available within a 50 mile radius. Now add in So Cal.

Yes, I was thinking the same after I wrote my earlier post.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
"We will need a resolution of this culture war, and I hope it is through working together with mutual respect."

Good luck with that pie in the sky. In order to reach that it requires people calming the F down, listening to each other to show respect then finding an agreement. If you stay here long enough you will see the problem VERY quickly that is causing this to not happen and it never will till they self reflect. I tried and I have given up. They never will do it till they decide to or something catastrophic happens and they have to.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
Warren Dew Wrote:]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.
Can you cite your method of inequality measurement and the data you used to obtain these results?

Quote: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.

Why should this matter? The economy doesn’t care.
 
Quote: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.

The stock crash has relatively little effect.  Stocks when down but bonds went up.  Since the bond market was considerably larger than the stock market, it had to have held a larger fraction of elite wealth than the stock portion.  Hence the crash did not affect the elite very much.  You know this wasn’t their first rodeo, we had had many crashes and panics before.  Elites were prepared for major stock declines.  The stock market crash did have a major direct impact on elites, but it was NOT on their wealth.  It was on their belief system and behavior.
 
Quote:Trump owns actual property like the industrialists. 

You don’t know this. I very much doubt Trump owns much of anything. The man has intimated that he does pay income taxes.  If he were actually a billionaire he would pay a shitload of taxes. What person running for office lies about NOT paying taxes if in fact he HAD paid taxes. Nobody, so I suspect Trump wasn’t bullshitting us, when he implied he pays nothing in income taxes. Trump has said many times that he is a master of debt and is a dealmaker extraordinaire. He has gone bankrupt three times.  That tells me he plays things VERY close to the edge, he has to have balls the size of cantelopes (he sure acts it). Only a chump OWNS property.  Smart folks use other people’s money to buy property which they then get the exclusive use of.  I wonder if he ran for president in order to get out of a tight spot.  We’ll never know, by the time he leaves office he will have raked in enough cash to make it all worthwhile.  Well he will if he still has the cojones I think he does.
Reply
Nihilist Moron Wrote:Hi Kinser!

Howdy, NM.  Long time, no see. Wecome aboard, etc.

Quote:I joined this forum to vote on your poll. Yes Trump is the GC and I didn't vote.

Uh,  Eric and Playwrite say we're doomed.

Quote:For any U.S. citizen wanting to flee the country, please check the immigration requirements of your desired nation of residence. It's likely that they will not want you.

  If you have SS, Costa Rica works.


Well, except for residents of San Jose, apparently.  Big Grin


Quote:Hang on everyone, will be an interesting four years.

LOL.
---Value Added Cool
Reply
(11-21-2016, 05:28 PM)Mikebert Wrote:
Warren Dew Wrote: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.
Can you cite your method of inequality measurement and the data you used to obtain these results?

Quote: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.

Why should this matter? The economy doesn’t care.

I was looking at a graph of total income in the top 0.1%, top 1%, top 5%, and top 10%.  I can't find that graph on the web, but you can back it out from here:

https://infiniteidenticalpsychopaths.fil....png?w=700

It's based on IRS data, and you can find numerous similar graphs with a google image search if you don't trust that particular site.  For people in the top 10% but not in the top 1%, there's a massive increase in income share at the crash at the cost of the top 1%, but they lose that benefit to the bottom 90% in WWII.

The situation since 2000 is less clear in that graph, but you can see it if you examine all the curves carefully.  The 'bouncing around without really moving much' is visible in the curves for the top 1%.

As for why it matters that WWII was a crisis war, because it was on a much larger scale.  Both money and life expenditures were about 5x larger than in WWI.  WWI is a tiny blip compared to WWII for the U.S., both economically and socially.

I've already made my points with respect to most of the rest of your post, except for this point that is exceptionally naive:

Quote:If he were actually a billionaire he would pay a shitload of taxes.

Billionaires pay virtually no taxes.  Warren Buffett pays an effective tax rate of less than one tenth of one percent.  See this article from the WSJ for a numerical analysis:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405...1587258988

The idea that people rich enough to buy politicians would allow those politicians to charge them taxes is naive in the extreme.
Reply
Could America be so depraved as to elevate Steve Bannon to the presidency?

I see his chart, and he has a higher score than Trump, 9-3

Maybe he has already been defacto elevated to the presidency.

Remember Ivanka Trump, score 14-1. Better than any Republican OR Democrat I have scored. The new nepotistic dynasty has arrived.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Neither of the current major party candidates is the "Grey Champion". Einzige 50 18,919 11-21-2016, 09:32 AM
Last Post: 2Legit2Quit
  This may be the last presidential election dominated by Boomers and prior generations Dan '82 2 1,755 09-05-2016, 09:48 PM
Last Post: Warren Dew
  Being "Wide Awake" in 1856, getting "Woke" in 2016 Odin 1 1,228 09-03-2016, 02:26 PM
Last Post: taramarie
  Article: The Ghosts of ’68 Haunt the Election of 2016 Odin 34 11,239 07-18-2016, 06:04 PM
Last Post: Anthony '58

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)