Party realignment ending or just starting?

[Kinser79]

(05-23-2016, 05:42 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Another founder of trash talk was Paul Harvey. He did return to an avuncular style so that he wasn't pure unlistenable rubbish.. but he was reading folksy trivia or trying to make ad copy seem as if news (really, really bad practice; I'd insist that a radio host not use his voice for ad copy on his show) between excoriations of liberals and counterculture types. Maybe that was GI style... go folksy to give the appearance of backing off.

PBR, I know you're clueless but this takes the cake. Paul Harvey mostly read the news in a folksy way. As for reading ad copy in his own voice this was common practice in the days before recorded commercials--IE before tape was cheap and the machines that played said tape was cheap. Since that didn't happen until about the 1970s, GIs were used to radio announcers reading ad copy on the air in their own voice. It was a reality created by the limits of the technology of the time.

I imagine in a century some Neo-Prophet just like you is going to say some nonsense along the lines of some now nameless Millie media person didn't do ads in holographic form.

[Odin]

(05-23-2016, 05:42 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Another founder of trash talk was Paul Harvey. He did return to an avuncular style so that he wasn't pure unlistenable rubbish.. but he was reading folksy trivia or trying to make ad copy seem as if news (really, really bad practice; I'd insist that a radio host not use his voice for ad copy on his show) between excoriations of liberals and counterculture types. Maybe that was GI style... go folksy to give the appearance of backing off.

Unlike most political trash-talkers today Harvey was actually funny and could make you laugh your ass off even if you disagreed with him. My maternal grandmother is as loyal a Dem as they come but she loved listening to Harvey because he was funny.

[Odin]

(05-23-2016, 10:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-23-2016, 02:10 PM)Dan Wrote: I"m working on something longer on this subject but I think that this years election is the start of a realignment like 1964 and 1928 were.

Possibly, meaning 2016 is like 1964/1928 the prelude to the realignment elections of 1968 and 1932.

I suspect though that 2024 may be even more important. There is a delay factor working in this 4T.

People are living longer and most importantly are able to stay healthy and active longer and so Silents and War Baby Cuspers have been able to be socially and politically active to a degree that would have been unfathomable one saeculum ago.

[playwrite]

(05-23-2016, 02:07 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Current no tax line is around 12,500 for single filers, and 20K for joint filers.  Trump's plan would simplify the tax code and shift the burden to higher brackets.  Those making under 25K as a single filer would not pay tax, 50K for joint.  The income tax savings of course will be off set by Yuge! Tariffs so in order to get cheap stuff it needs to be made here.

So for poor people Eric, Daddy is great.  Jobs for blacks by deporting the illegals.  Rising wages by restricting labor supply, oh and cutting taxes on the very poorest while bringing back manufacturing by making imported bric-a-brak much more expensive.  Over all a win for everyone who is poor--unless of course you think people should be sitting on welfare like some sort of parasite instead is preferable.  Personally I would prefer people worked and had something to take pride in again.  A winning nation has winners as its backbone and you don't win on welfare, welfare is slavery, it is debasement, it is the very essence of being a loser.

And this has been your education on MAGA.

Under Trump's 'plan,' 1/3 of the reduced tax benefit would go to 80% of filers with low incomes.  

Another 1/3 would go to the top 0.8% of filers that make $1M/year. 

Of course, this would add 11.2 TRILLION to the federal debt over the next 10 years.


pssss, for the sheeple, here's how this WILL work out -

The 1/3 benefit for the 80% would be jettisoned as crucial (crucial I's tell ya!) matter to not blow the deficit! 

The 1/3 benefit for the millionaires would go forward because they are the "job creators" and "trickle down"

Heard it all before?  You can also see it! 




Same old schtick, just new rubes.

[pbrower2a]

(05-23-2016, 10:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-23-2016, 05:42 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Another founder of trash talk was Paul Harvey. He did return to an avuncular style so that he wasn't pure unlistenable rubbish.. but he was reading folksy trivia or trying to make ad copy seem as if news (really, really bad practice; I'd insist that a radio host not use his voice for ad copy on his show) between excoriations of liberals and counterculture types. Maybe that was GI style... go folksy to give the appearance of backing off.

Perhaps influential, but I would hardly call Harvey in the same league with Downey or Pyne, let alone Limbaugh or Springer or Stern. He mixed news with his opinions, and was up front about doing so. He was conservative, but somewhat maverick. His "rest of the story" stories were classic.

"The Rest of the Story" was enjoyable. I can't say the same of Limbaugh (right-wing jerk), Springer (liberal jerk), or Stern (simply o0bnoxious).

[Eric the Green]

(05-24-2016, 11:46 AM)playwrite Wrote:

(05-23-2016, 02:07 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Current no tax line is around 12,500 for single filers, and 20K for joint filers.  Trump's plan would simplify the tax code and shift the burden to higher brackets.  Those making under 25K as a single filer would not pay tax, 50K for joint.  The income tax savings of course will be off set by Yuge! Tariffs so in order to get cheap stuff it needs to be made here.

So for poor people Eric, Daddy is great.  Jobs for blacks by deporting the illegals.  Rising wages by restricting labor supply, oh and cutting taxes on the very poorest while bringing back manufacturing by making imported bric-a-brak much more expensive.  Over all a win for everyone who is poor--unless of course you think people should be sitting on welfare like some sort of parasite instead is preferable.  Personally I would prefer people worked and had something to take pride in again.  A winning nation has winners as its backbone and you don't win on welfare, welfare is slavery, it is debasement, it is the very essence of being a loser.

And this has been your education on MAGA.

Under Trump's 'plan,' 1/3 of the reduced tax benefit would go to 80% of filers with low incomes.  

Another 1/3 would go to the top 0.8% of filers that make $1M/year. 

Of course, this would add 11.2 TRILLION to the federal debt over the next 10 years.


pssss, for the sheeple, here's how this WILL work out -

The 1/3 benefit for the 80% would be jettisoned as crucial (crucial I's tell ya!) matter to not blow the deficit! 

The 1/3 benefit for the millionaires would go forward because they are the "job creators" and "trickle down"

Heard it all before?  You can also see it! 




Same old schtick, just new rubes.

Excellent portrayal of Trump's trickle-down; I'd say the lady is a Democrat at least holding the bag.

[playwrite]

(05-23-2016, 04:12 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(05-23-2016, 09:27 AM)Anthony Wrote: Donald Trump is a national liberal - with even a slight left-liberal tinge: He says he doesn't care what bathrooms transgenders use, and has hemmed and hawed on abortion from Day One - while advocating policies that would send wages soaring, particularly for the lowest-paid workers, and would grant total tax forgiveness to the working poor.

Lind comes across as trying very hard to believe your thesis.  It seems to me that you and he are working with some mighty thin gruel.  Trump is offering very little that will material affect the economic situation of working class Americans.  Of course, all of Trump's Republican opponents were offering even less.

The economic problem workers face today is not a new one.  An earlier generation of workers faced a similar situation during the Gilded Age.  Their attempt at a solution was to create a an organized entity for the explicit purpose of looking out for worker's economic interests, labor unions.  It look generations, but after WW II workers made major gains.  Labor unions were a key part of this success. They needed political allies and had them.

For 60 years Republicans and Southern conservatives have worked to destroy unions. 

Now you are saying that the nominee of the party containing both of these groups is a national liberal with a leftist tinge?

One needs to look at the GOP coalition (currently under duress) to get a sense of any potential for realignment. 

That GOP coalition has been the well-off convincing their not-so-well-off sheeple that government was the problem and needed to be drowned in the bathtub.  An easy sale when the not-so-well-off saw the tax taken from their paycheck coupled with the belief that federal debt is like all other debt, and if not paid off, someday the boogie man was gonna come and the dingos would eat the baby. 

With that schtick, the GOP gets voted in, they completely screw the economy, the Dems come back and clean up the mess, the not-so-well-off sheeple forget - rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat.

But that's not working any more, and that's why the GOP coalition is under duress.  Wages have been going down since Ron Ray-gun, and with it, aggregate demand, deflation is alway at the door.  It's been blanketed over with the dot.com nonsense and followed by homes being used like ATMs.  Dems, as usual, came in and cleaned up as much as they could.  It's got us back out of the hole the GOP put us in, but, thanks to t-bagger obstruction, it's not enough.  And, of course, the sheeple buy that its the government and Dems fault - so we're due another rinse and repeat.  But is there any doubt the next downturn isn't going to get ugly?  Rinse and repeat is not working anymore, and it's going to get worse.

Everyone senses this but the solution is so overwhelmingly against all their conditioning from the last 35 years, they can't comprehend let alone accept the real solution.  It's the perfect environment for the Talking Yam, Music Man to come along and tell them we can have those 76 trombones if we just take on those evil Mexicans and Chinese!  Yee-haw, it's gonna be not only  freedom fries for everyone but a brand new F150 in every driveway!

And the rubes suck it up.  Because, well, their rubes.

You can point out to them that imports AND EXPORTS TOGETHER only make up 15% of our economic activity.  You can tell them that any single trade deal is only going to be a relatively small part of that 15%.  And you can tell them that only a small shift in actual trade will occur under any trade deal, with the other side forced to be as protectionistic as your side.  

Bottom line, contrary to the Talking Yam, if you are looking to improve employment and wages, YOU ARE LOOKING IN THE WRONG F'N PLACE.

There will be no sustainable realignment beyond any election cycle... at least until the rubes stop being rubes.  

Until then, we're with stupids.  

[pbrower2a]

Realigning elections usually occur in the wake of multiple landslide losses. After the landslide loses to FDR and the near-landslide loss to Truman (it would have been a landslide loss by Dewey had it not been for the third-party candidacy of racist Strom Thurmond), the Republican nominee worked heavily on the mining-and-ranching states and some others to give a chance to Dwight Eisenhower. Many states that had been fairly-reliable D states before 1952 became reliable in all but 60-40 blowouts by the Democratic nominee for a long time. Among those states were Arizona, Oklahoma, Utah, and Virginia.

After three blowout losses to Republican nominees for President, Democrats started working on states that had generally gone R in Presidential elections as late as 1976. Clinton still picked up some Southern states, but just look at all the states that Clinton won that Carter lost.   

These three Democratic wins involve the "New South" -- the South between the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the completion of the success of the Southern Strategy.  

1992 is about as clearly a Realignment election as any in the lifetimes of any reader of these forums unless one is very old. Few saw 1992 coming, and the 1992 election looked very different from that of 1976.



It's not a perfect match (there was a third-party nominee getting lots of votes), but I am showing the one Carter win to the two (Bill) Clinton wins:

Ford, Bush, Dole -- blue
Carter, Clinton once -- pale blue
Carter, Clinton never -- yellow
Ford -- but Clinton twice -- white
Carter, Clinton twice -- red 

There might be further realignment as Republicans worked the Mountain and Deep South to pull them reliably into the Republican camp.  But that looks complete.

If anyone has any doubt that the Presidential Election of 1976 is ancient history for all practical purposes:

Carter 1976, Obama 2008/2012    



Carter 1976, Obama twice  red
Carter 1976, Obama once pink
Carter 1976, Obama never yellow
Ford 1976, Obama twice white
Ford 1976, Obama once light blue
Ford 1976, Obama never blue

Just look at all the states in yellow and white.

[Mikebert]

Kinser79 Wrote:Mike did you even bother reading the article?  He is trying to compare newly forming parties that are composed of primarily Xers and Millies with those composed of mostly Silents and Boomers.  Nomad and Civic generations have different expressions than Artist and Prophet generations.  That is of course if you even buy into the theory that archetypes matter. 

Lind didn't say anything about S&H generations.  I have read a bit of Lind's stuff over the years. He is a keen political analyst.  The idea that American has seen three different republics that roughly correspond to the saecula is his.  Considering he has written on the country's economic development and has been concerned about economics and how working people have not had an economy that works for them his piece was remarkably short on economics.  He basically says that the realignment around the culture wars is what matters and economics is irrelevant.

Quote:As for Trump's policy, we have to consider that the alternatives are "Cheap imported shit" from Establishment Republicans

I already said the Republicans offer nothing, Trump is the best of a bad bunch.
 

Quote:Democrats are offering the opposite of help--literally massive increases of welfare if you're Sanders

If you dislike what Sanders has to offer so much, why did you bother to vote for him?
 

Quote:The former the country cannot afford without debasing the currency and losing reserve status (at which point the empire is over)

This is of a great concern for the capitalists, the financial elite, and the 1% in general, or to use Sander's shorthand "the billionaire class".  So now you are on their side?
 

Quote:Indeed, so-called free trade hasn't worked.

No argument here
 

Quote:Importation of cheap labor has resulted in stagnant wage growth (see law of supply and demand).  As such the obvious choice for any improvement is to limit labor importation (restrict supply), and institute protectionist measures (increase demand for labor).  As a result wages will rise far higher and far faster than a statutory increase in the minimum wage which would just drive what jobs that remain to be automated.

If higher wages from a higher minimum wage will just drive what jobs that remain to be automated, then higher wages from labor supply restrictions will do the same thing.  Ditto for trade restrictions.
 
In actuality a higher minimum wage will increase wages at the bottom.  And trade/immigration restriction will also have impacts in the direction you argument, but of a much smaller magnitude that what you are imagining (this is the thin gruel).  The reason is you are assuming a fixed demand for labor, and only looking at the effect of supply changes.  For an industrial economy  the demand for workers is set by the demand for goods and services.  The demand for goods and services is related to aggregate worker income (who buy stuff as part of their lives)  Workers are not just producers, they are consumers too.  So when immigrants increase the supply of labor they also increase economic demand and hence the demand for labor. The two effects operate in opposite directions and serve to dilute the adverse impact of immigration restriction.  For example for my current paper I looked at what was done last time for inequality trend reversal.  One of those things was immigration restriction in 1924.  I would expect this to have some positive effect on wage growth, but I could not find it.  Real wages rose at a 1.2% rate over 1924-1929 compared to 1.3% over 1896-1924.  So any effect was small.
 
Trade restriction should have a more directly beneficial effect, which I why I have been calling for a tariff for years. The impact is also a lot smaller that you think and will probably have zero impact on 90% of workers other than slightly lower living standards  from higher prices.  It will help the minority of workers in industries affected by outsourcing.  There is good data on that.

I am not sure a tariff is really such a good policy, but I think talking about a tariff is a very good idea, because it scares the pants off the economic elite.  And THAT is an unalloyed good thing.  And Trump sure has been talking about it.

Quote:In the US during the gilded age workers were some of the most highly paid in the world

America had higher wages than elsewhere in the world in colonial times, and ever since.  They still are higher here than in Europe.
 

Quote:the US was running a more or less constant labor shortage through the 19th century

Are you really unaware of the massive amount of immigration in late 19th century and the working class native-born Americans had opposed mass immigration since the 1850's for the same reasons as today?  Westward expansion had been a relief value in the early part of the 19th century before immigration became much of an issue. In the later parts of the 19th century, the incoming immigrants stayed in the Eastern cities: 

Quote:But the law did not provide the new beginning for urban slum dwellers that some had hoped; few such families had the resources to start farming, even on free land.

 

Kinser Wrote:However, in order to have unions, and have them be effective a state must also protect the production of the country from foreign competition in the form of dumping and similar practices.

How does foreign competition affect Walmart, our largest employer?  Or restaurant, hospitality or healthcare workers?  The vast majority of US workers do not work in fields susceptible to foreign competition.  You work in one of these fields.  Are you so happy with your compensation that a union is unnecessary? 

Quote:I would argue that Unions destroyed themselves by being largely successful.

So you have no complaints about you pay or working conditions? 

Quote:Trump's ideology can be best phrased as Nationalist with Classical Liberalism

You could just use libertarian, which is the modern word for classical liberal.

So you feel the Kochs represent the right direction for America?

[Odin]

(05-24-2016, 12:26 PM)playwrite Wrote: And the rubes suck it up.  Because, well, their rubes.

Calls other people ignorant rubes, confuses "their" and "they're".

[Kinser79]

(05-25-2016, 06:42 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Lind didn't say anything about S&H generations.  I have read a bit of Lind's stuff over the years. He is a keen political analyst.  The idea that American has seen three different republics that roughly correspond to the saecula is his.  Considering he has written on the country's economic development and has been concerned about economics and how working people have not had an economy that works for them his piece was remarkably short on economics.  He basically says that the realignment around the culture wars is what matters and economics is irrelevant.

Again not the same article I read then. He seems to assume that the very same generations that were the back bone of the parties in the Mid 20th centuries are going to be magically replaced. It is the very absence of even contemplating generations and their archetypes that is the flaw here.

Quote:I already said the Republicans offer nothing, Trump is the best of a bad bunch.

The Establishment ones certainly don't.
 

Quote:If you dislike what Sanders has to offer so much, why did you bother to vote for him?

Two reasons:

1. Florida is a closed primary state and I'm still registered as a democrat.
2. He's not Shillary.

In all honesty I didn't expect Sanders to be as successful as he has been.
 

Quote:This is of a great concern for the capitalists, the financial elite, and the 1% in general, or to use Sander's shorthand "the billionaire class".  So now you are on their side?

Losing reserve status is the concern for everyone. Inflation, particularly hyperinflation, disproportionately harms the poor.
 

Quote:If higher wages from a higher minimum wage will just drive what jobs that remain to be automated, then higher wages from labor supply restrictions will do the same thing.  Ditto for trade restrictions.

Yes but it will be because of market forces acting in their own way.
 

Quote:In actuality a higher minimum wage will increase wages at the bottom.

In many jobs where all one really needs is a pulse the minimum wage actually acts as a maximum wage.

Quote: So when immigrants increase the supply of labor they also increase economic demand and hence the demand for labor.

In my work as a Marxist, I can tell you how many immigrants operate in this country. They defer their own demand to send remittances to their home countries. So while immigrants might increase demand it is not substantial enough to increase the demand for labor to compensate for their increasing its supply.

Quote:Trade restriction should have a more directly beneficial effect, which I why I have been calling for a tariff for years. The impact is also a lot smaller that you think and will probably have zero impact on 90% of workers other than slightly lower living standards  from higher prices.  It will help the minority of workers in industries affected by outsourcing.  There is good data on that.

One you assume that outsourcing occurs to a minority of workers--indeed the vast majority of workers jobs can be outsourced now. Tell me, last time you called customer service did you speak to an American? I'm willing to bet you instead spoke to someone who couldn't properly pronounce the word "wood". The /oo/ sound isn't present in Hindi and Indians have a particular difficulty in pronouncing it.

Quote:I am not sure a tariff is really such a good policy, but I think talking about a tariff is a very good idea, because it scares the pants off the economic elite.  And THAT is an unalloyed good thing.  And Trump sure has been talking about it.

A tariff to deal with dumping, currency manipulation, and to raise general revenue should be a net positive. Furthermore having rising prices for many consumer goods should result in the opening of production facilities to make those goods.

It should also be noted that just about every other country has tariffs on our goods--especially China. That it scares the economic elite is a nice side-effect but that is all it is.

Quote:America had higher wages than elsewhere in the world in colonial times, and ever since.  They still are higher here than in Europe.

Precisely which is why the "Americans just can't compete" line of argumentation is bull. However, during those times the US also maintained economic protection for vital industries. Industries that we need for national security as well as economic security. A policy of protectionism was maintained from the Washington administration to the Ford administration and once those were started to be removed (culminating in the Washington Consensus since the 1990s) economic conditions for the working people of the country have deteriorated and rapidly.
 

Quote:Are you really unaware of the massive amount of immigration in late 19th century and the working class native-born Americans had opposed mass immigration since the 1850's for the same reasons as today?  Westward expansion had been a relief value in the early part of the 19th century before immigration became much of an issue. In the later parts of the 19th century, the incoming immigrants stayed in the Eastern cities: 
[quote]
But the law did not provide the new beginning for urban slum dwellers that some had hoped; few such families had the resources to start farming, even on free land.

I have studied history. In the later half of the 19th century it was the native born working class that spread west.
 

Kinser Wrote:How does foreign competition affect Walmart, our largest employer?  Or restaurant, hospitality or healthcare workers?  The vast majority of US workers do not work in fields susceptible to foreign competition.  You work in one of these fields.  Are you so happy with your compensation that a union is unnecessary? 

No. That being said, unionization is not realistic for hospitality workers. Healthcare workers might be unionized, but only if there is a union worthwhile joining. Most unions are not.

All of that being said, you're forgetting that hospitality and healthcare both are wealth consumptive industries, that is they consume wealth already created. In short for there to be demand for restaurant dinners and nurses that come to your house when you're old and decrepit, there needs to either be new wealth generated (through manufacturing) or one is left consuming wealth that has already been created (which quite frankly won't support the boomers as large as a generation as they are).

Quote:So you have no complaints about you pay or working conditions? 

Naturally I would always take more money. Most of my complaints regarding pay has to do with being salaried instead of hourly. As for my working conditions, I've worked worse places.

Quote:You could just use libertarian, which is the modern word for classical liberal.

I would prefer Classical Liberal. Many libertarians argue only against the state, I argue against all forms of authoritarianism reguardless from where it comes.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-23-2016, 09:05 AM)Mikebert Wrote: There are two views of the meaning of the Trump/Sanders phenomenon.  One is they represent the beginning of a party re-alignment.  The other being made by Michael Lind is that they present the end of a party re-alignment and the beginning of a policy shift to reflect that realignment.

I have one criticism of Lind's views. For Lind, the sum total of economics is trade and immigration, which are really side issues in economic policy.  Far more important is tax policy and the nature of the policy made by economic policymakers.  It is still not politically correct in either party to talk about this.  Lind glosses over this. 

In effect he is saying that the realignment that has occurred as a result of the culture war will stick.  That white working class voters will continue to support anti-union, low tax rates on the investor/management class, and accept falling real wages as long as their party shows hostility to nonwhites and cultural elites.  In other words guns, gays and abortion have been augments by illegals, Muslims and the Chinese as culture war talking points.

In other words that the 1% will continue to control both parties and politics will be continue to be about stupid shit with real policy limited to rearrangements of the economic deck chairs.

Coming from a turning perspective, I would expect a progressive party to work a transforming agenda that attacks the basic problems of the crisis.  As I see us still in a stagnant bickering phase, this hasn't happened yet, the lessons learned from the crisis are yet unlearned, thus any realignment should be judged tentative at this point.

If the transforming party are the victors able to write history books, the opposition would be screaming and clinging to old wisdom through the crisis.  At some point in the 1T the flaws in the new transformed culture become clear enough that a new opposition platform should arrive to oppose the dominant post-crisis establishment.  Another turning down streams and a new bunch of prophets might voice their opinions.  There's a possibility of another realignment then.

But I'm not seeing a classic 4T pattern yet.  I'm not entirely sure the need to transform will reach a critical mass.

[Bronco80]

As I've said in other threads, I'm on board with the idea of realignment coming.  It may take a while for it to be evident, perhaps until the 4T is over.  But as I think about it, I think it's going to be difficult for the pro-business interests of the GOP to find a home unless they finally moderate economically to the point of where most center-right parties are globally.  If they don't, they risk their supporters to continue to flock to the Democratic Party and to keep getting beaten by Trumpist candidates.

[Kinser79]

(05-25-2016, 01:31 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Coming from a turning perspective, I would expect a progressive party to work a transforming agenda that attacks the basic problems of the crisis.

As I've stated elsewhere, the formulation that gets the 'progressive' mantle is whichever formulation 'wins' the 4T. As it stands both parties have some form of solution what matters is who is going to win.

 

Quote:As I see us still in a stagnant bickering phase, this hasn't happened yet, the lessons learned from the crisis are yet unlearned, thus any realignment should be judged tentative at this point.

Other turnings have a micro-turning structure, and previous 4Ts also had one. If one can argue that the micro-1T started sometime between 2005 and 2008 then a micro-2T should happen at the latest 2013 (assuming a rigid 5 year micro-turning). As I've argued in the past the 4T was catalyzed in 2005 with Katrina and began when economic troubles started around late 2006 or 2007 in the Real Economy (Wall Street has lag time). This would mean that a micro-2T starting between 2010 or 2011 would be right on time. This would lead to a micro-3T starting sometime around 2016 and this would explain why you see a "stagnant bickering phase".

Quote:If the transforming party are the victors able to write history books, the opposition would be screaming and clinging to old wisdom through the crisis.

Yes, and one party is running a Status Quo candidate. I'll give you a hint it isn't the Republicans. This is why I'm convinced that HRC must lose the election, maintaining the status quo will only serve to prolong the 4T much like Obama's policies have prolonged the Great Depression 2.0.

 

Quote:At some point in the 1T the flaws in the new transformed culture become clear enough that a new opposition platform should arrive to oppose the dominant post-crisis establishment.  Another turning down streams and a new bunch of prophets might voice their opinions.  There's a possibility of another realignment then.

Generally speaking realignments happen in 4Ts and 2Ts. There was a realignment during the 2T just past which resulted in the so-called Reagan Revolution and the desertion of the Democratic Party from its working class base and lead to Bill Clinton though he was preceded by a rather weak Carter in that area.

Quote:But I'm not seeing a classic 4T pattern yet.  I'm not entirely sure the need to transform will reach a critical mass.

I'm seeing it quite clearly. Of course I also subscribe to many addenda to traditional S&H theory, most notably megasaeculums and micro-turnings.

[Eric the Green]

(05-25-2016, 04:40 PM)Bronco80 Wrote: As I've said in other threads, I'm on board with the idea of realignment coming.  It may take a while for it to be evident, perhaps until the 4T is over.  But as I think about it, I think it's going to be difficult for the pro-business interests of the GOP to find a home unless they finally moderate economically to the point of where most center-right parties are globally.  If they don't, they risk their supporters to continue to flock to the Democratic Party and to keep getting beaten by Trumpist candidates.

That certainly seems right to me.

[Eric the Green]

With the likely exception of the first one, realigning elections have always come in each 2T and 4T, and usually somewhere near the beginning. If we agree with mikebert's choice, iirc, of these elections: 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, 1968 and 2008, then the realignment has already come in 2008. What could happen is a further election that further cements the change; as in 1980, and maybe 1936, 1912, 1868, 1844, 1820, etc.

Come to think of it, 1800 didn't really realign the parties; that had happened in 1792-96. It was just one party taking over from the other, a party which was destined to disappear. It was the same alignment, the original one; Jeffersonian Democrats vs. Adams' Federalists. So 1800 was a "cementing" election like 1980.

[Bronco80]

(05-26-2016, 12:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: With the likely exception of the first one, realigning elections have always come in each 2T and 4T, and usually somewhere near the beginning. If we agree with mikebert's choice, iirc, of these elections: 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, 1968 and 2008, then the realignment has already come in 2008. What could happen is a further election that further cements the change; as in 1980, and maybe 1936, 1912, 1868, 1844, 1820, etc.

Come to think of it, 1800 didn't really realign the parties; that had happened in 1792-96. It was just one party taking over from the other, a party which was destined to disappear. It was the same alignment, the original one; Jeffersonian Democrats vs. Adams' Federalists. So 1800 was a "cementing" election like 1980.

Realignments don't always finish at or near where they start.  In my opinion, the transition from the Fifth to Sixth Party System started in the late 1960s (early 2T), but didn't finish until well into the 1990s (early-mid 3T).  I would expect the same out of the realignment from the Sixth to the Seventh (if it has indeed started).

This might be worthy of a S&H-related thread if I think about it more, but I don't have the time right now.

[Cynic Hero '86]

The Micro-2T started in 2011 when the tea party tried to crash the economy. The 2016 election should be the Climax of the Micro-2T with the micro 3T beginning in 2017 and going to sometime in the early 2020s.

[Kinser79]

(05-26-2016, 06:57 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: The Micro-2T started in 2011 when the tea party tried to crash the economy. The 2016 election should be the Climax of the Micro-2T with the micro 3T beginning in 2017 and going to sometime in the early 2020s.

I would argue that the format that turning has followed the following timeline. I will be using a, b, c, and d to indicate the micro-turning with a being a micro-1t, b being a micro-2t and so forth.

2006-2011 4Ta
2012-2016-17 4Tb
2017-18 - 2022? 4Tc (I actually think this micro turning will take up the bulk of Trump's Presidency assuming he's a two termer)
2020?-2025? 4Td this is where I expect the final climax of the 4T to take shape. It may or may not involve a war.

[Anthony '58]

Quote:So single people with no kids actually don't pay any net income taxes until their income reaches nearly 15K. They do pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes etc.

In 2015 the sum of the standard deduction and personal exemption was exactly $10,000 - and the EITC for a single taxpayer with no dependents with an AGI of $14,500 (the federal minimum wage X 40 hours a week X 50 weeks a year) was $23, and the total income tax was $450. So the net liability for such an earner in 2015 was $427 - not $0.

It would appear that there are lies, damn lies, statistics - and Mikebert's statistics!