Well, I'm back

[Ragnarök_62]

(01-25-2018, 01:33 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-24-2018, 08:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-23-2018, 11:51 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-22-2018, 11:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ... But if boom times impel the Republicans to stay in power, and rule over times that become relaxed and complacent with the national divide just fading away into a new and successful gilded age, then I think the cycle of the saeculum has ended. The 4T would have been a brief dud in 2008-2010. There is no 1T without a 4T; there would be no way to characterize such a prospect within the saeculum paradigm. The pattern would simply not hold. But all the cosmic signs and the demographics militate against this happening. The cosmic signs may not always be easy to read, but on this point they seem unambiguous. We have severe conflicts ahead in the 2020s, and vigorous new departures for our country-- or what's left of it.

We're entering the second Age following the Industrial.  That alone is enough to change the tenor of things.  But that doesn't mean that we're at the end of history, merely shifting to a new paradigm.  We still have issues that need to be solved, and some are moving to the critical stage.  The real question: do they get resolved in this 4T period or merely delayed until the next 2T or longer?  Intellectually, I'm open to either, but emotionally I'd prefer seeing the issues resolved sooner than later.  

I don't always get my wish.

Me either. One thing I've noticed is how many tyrants have appeared and gone beserk in recent times despite the touted "end of history" following the end of the Soviet Union and the birth of many new states and some new democracies in the 1990s.

Human nature, especially of economic and administrative elites, hasn't changed much since the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle or of the Hebrew prophets. The classics remain relevant to Modern Man in ways that we don;t realize until we neglect the lessons. In case someone says that this observation is unduly ethnocentric, one can get a workable order out of Confucius and the Buddha.

Economic and administrative elites have invariably done what they think that they can get away with, whatever their stated ideology. The question is whether they know when to give up. The French Revolution of 1789 had much to say about the Romanian Revolution of 1989 even if the ideologies of Louis XVI and Nicolae Ceausescu were seeming opposites.

Quote:Now, Turkey has slipped back into the world of thuggery, and Assad of Syria has taken it to a level not seen since Hitler and Pol Pot. This vacuum also opened the way to the horrible Islamic State. The current Isreali thug ruler continues to attack his Palestinian neighbors. Deterte has waged war on his own Filipinos in the name of the drug war, and General Sisi hijacked the Egyptian Arab Spring democratic movement and turned it into virtual tyranny. The Saudi royal family is easing some restrictions while they rain terror and death over their Yemeni neighbors -- even as they now are offering some aid to them. Putin has put the emergent Russian democracy back into the age of the Tsars. Hungary and Poland seem on the verge of fascism, and Venezuela and Brazil are in the grip of corruption, and in the former case of one-man rule despite people massed in the streets against him. Honduras remains in the grip of thuggery too. And the USA put a would-be thug into its Oval Office who is marching that nation back into medieval times as fast as he can.

I now have more fear of what Donald Trump can do to the world than I ever had of Khrushchev or Brezhnev. This is what one gets with a political leader whose style of communication is the schoolyard taunt. This is what one gets with leadership more attentive to personal gain and indulgence than with service to Humanity, someone who ridicules any critic.

Perhaps multicultural tendencies have their own reaction in people circling the wagons against people unlike themselves by culture, religion,  and appearance. But we Americans seem to be recognizing that we have a big problem.

Quote:....
One thing is sure, more change will come in this 4T, and in the USA the progressive side has always won the 4T battles. If the progressive side loses this time and the Republicans win instead, it will mark the first time that the regressive side has won, and will indicate that the USA is in severe decline. It would not survive as we know it. One thing is sure too: changes in a 4T are never enough, even if the progressive side wins as usual. There is always more needed, and that's where the next 2T comes in to take things to the next level. 

 In Germany (with the arguable exception of the Soviet Zone), Austria, Italy, and Japan, the progressive side won. But the ones who won were foreign Great Powers, even if that was not soon enough to prevent some unspeakable horrors of enslavement and genocide. God help us should America go so bad that it should need foreign liberation in defeat to recover some political decency.

America as an Evil Empire dominant upon the world is one of the worst scenarios possible. To be sure, corruption and cruelty are not good for winning the final struggle. The best way to win a war is to make sure that the other side has nothing left for which to fight. What would be worse? Extinction of civilization, let alone humanity itself.

Quote:But I think we need a progressive victory in the 4T before the next 2T can bring a new Awakening. A reactionary victory in this 4T will result in there being no new Awakening in what is now the USA. There will be no basis for one in society. America cannot recover from a victory by today's regressive faction, which is now in power. Awakenings as we have known them don't happen in societies that are in constant suffering and decline. One reason for this is that there will be no new prophet generation. These generations have always been victory children.

But Germany and Italy had Awakening eras just as strong as ours. So did Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, not as privileged as the non-communist industrialized countries. Japan might not have, but that says more about Japanese culture or that Japanese pop culture didn't then travel well. Sweden, not a participant in World War II, had an Awakening. The repressive regimes of Spain and Portugal were able to put off Awakening Eras until the 1970s. but when the glacial winters of repression died, the flowers could bloom. An Awakening Era depends on some freedom and the perception that the world is a much safer place than it had been.

Quote:One thing to note well, however. In 4T crises, it has always been uncertain whether the progressive side would win, or whether we instead would slip into a new dark age. It is always darkest before the dawn. The American Revolution hung by a thread many times. The Civil War seemed to go on and on with no end in sight. The Depression seemed never-ending too, and Hitler could have defeated the Allies had he been smarter in his strategy.

Hitler lost the war because he could have never gotten peace except through the extermination of his enemies as he tried with the Jews. In any event I can figure that his style of government would have imploded much as the Soviet order did in the 1980s.  But this is a science-fiction scenario.

The best thing that one can say of a 4T is that people eventually do what they must to preserve what is best in their heritage while undoing the worst, when alternatives (especially giving in to a seeming fate) become unworkable.

Hitler lost the European war because of his atrocities. I can easily imagine Britain accepting a German hegemony over Europe had it not been for Nazi atrocities much as Britain had shown little concern about the Franco-Prussian War.

Quote:Awakenings have not always been entirely successful or progressive spiritually, but they DO nevertheless put some momentum behind the changes that happen in the next 4T. Earlier awakenings were traditionally-religious, but uplifting to the spirit. This kind of awakening in the mid-18th century gave momentum to positive changes such as the American Revolution 4T, with a new constitution as its outcome that, while still flawed, was a landmark in human history that inspired the French and then the world. 

The Boom Awakening has not been as rich in consciousness-building literature as the Transcendental and Missionary Awakenings. So far I see some progress in minority-based consciousness... but at this stage of the  4T I see largely the narcissism among economic and administrative elites, and this is much the problem of contemporary America -- people with the power to get practically anything that they want and nobody able to stop them. This said, many Boomers reject this and want something very different -- and they will need Generation X to administer such change and Millennial adults to realize it in work. Donald Trump is not the last act of Boomers, the youngest of which will be in their 60s in the 2020s.  

Quote:Since then, our great Awakenings have often been both traditionally-religious and non-conformist spiritual movements. That includes the previous one, which was dominated by non-conformist awakenings through human potential and counter-cultural movements like esalen, est, the hippies and the new agers, which although climaxing early in the 2T, continued throughout and beyond it, and which also helped empower environmental and peace movements as well as diversity awakenings. Later in the 2T came a counter-awakening of a Jesus-freak movement followed by the moral majority and other fundamentalist awakenings that empowered the reactionary political movements still dominant today in red states. This divided awakening has resulted in the red-blue divide that threatens to tear our nation apart in this 4T. I suspect, however, that if the nation holds together, that this divide will pass away or lessen in severity in the following 1T.

There are the libertarian causes... and it looks as if Esalen, est, hippies, and New Age stuff will not be particularly relevant to the future. They are strictly Boom phenomena. As for the Christian Protestant fundamentalists -- they have children. If those children read and contemplate the Bible instead of treating it as a holy icon beyond discovery, they will find out how amoral and immoral their parents are for racism, homophobia, and economic hierarchy.

Actually, it looks like the US is following the same path the USSR did to the way to
oblivion.

Falling life expectancy, check.
nomenkatura, check.
imperial overstretch, check.
incompetent bureaucracies, check
failing economy, check. It's there, underneath the gilt.  High real unemployment. The headline is fake news.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-r...te-3306198
I'll give Americans this. We use a wider array of substances to numb out the pains of dispair. The drug problem is an environmental problem, not a moral problem.

More here.
https://www.salon.com/2010/12/06/america_collapse_2025/

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/201107...eats.shtml
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/wor...l-spending

I dunno when it will happen, but all empires end.  Besides we'll be colliding with climate change, resource shortages, etc. etc.  Russia got lucky in that they didn't have to experience collisions with some pretty damn big black swans.

[Mikebert]

This is in response to David Horn

There is more. Donald Trump (or someone like him) is a key element I believe.  Trump won the nomination after embracing several themes that when incompatible with movement conservatism (the reigning ideology since the reconstructive president Ronald Reagan).  Other presidents had challenged this ideology before (Buchanan in 1992 and 1996, Tancredo in 2008, Huckabee in 2008 and 2012) but none had gained traction.  Trump did, which shows that the movement conservatism ideology is losing it potency, 36 years after it was established.  Note: the New Deal ideology established by reconstructive president Franklin Roosevelt had lost potency by 1976 when economic liberals Mo Udall and “Scoop” Jackson lost to conservative Democrat Jimmy Carter.  In some ways, the 2016 election is for Republicans what 1976 was for Democrats.

The economy will almost certainly not go south in 2018 in a way that would exert a negative effect on the incumbent party’s prospects. Nevertheless, despite apparent prosperity the president’s poll numbers are poor and have been for a long time. In the recent government shutdown, Republicans are receiving most of the blame, which makes sense since they are the party holding the White House, but they also got the blame for the 2013 shutdown when Democrats held the White House.

These observations suggest Republicans are not benefitting from favorable events such as the strong economy.  One reason for this is the fact that wage growth has been anemic for decades (real unskilled wages in 2016 were no higher than they were in 1981) despite the fact that for 9 years out of the last 21 we have seen unemployment levels lower than at any time during the much-vaunted Reagan years of the 1980’s. Working class people no longer expect low unemployment to benefit them. 

On the other hand, stocks have been on a tear, swelling 401k accounts. In the aftermath of the tech wreck and 2008 financial crisis, 401k investors have learned that what goes up can go down.  Everyone I know believes the market is high, but they are still invested. If the market does go down everyone can’t sell (who will be buying?).  So while nice, the rising market is worrisome, so Republicans do not get positive credit for the soaring market since Trump was elected. On the other hand, if stocks do go south, Republicans will get the full blame for the bear market that ensues because of their (stock) investment-stimulating tax cut will have blown up a bigger bubble than existed when Trump was elected. 

There is a fundamental asymmetry that exists in this (4T) era. The party in power cannot get full credit for low unemployment because it doesn’t boost wages, nor can they get full credit for the rising stock market because of bubble fears resulting from recent experience in the post-2000 and post-2007 markets. Yet they will get full blame for any bad stuff that happens. Even if the economy stays good, there is plenty of bad stuff that can happen. It is entirely possible for Republicans to lose the House this November despite record-low unemployment and all-time highs in the stock market.

If Republicans are losing even in the face of the most positive fundamentals possible, what happens when Lady Luck turns against them?

[pbrower2a]

(01-25-2018, 08:00 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Actually, it looks like the US is following the same path the USSR did to the way to
oblivion.

Falling life expectancy, check.
nomenkatura, check.
imperial overstretch, check.
incompetent bureaucracies, check
failing economy, check. It's there, underneath the gilt.  High real unemployment. The headline is fake news.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-r...te-3306198
I'll give Americans this. We use a wider array of substances to numb out the pains of despair. The drug problem is an environmental problem, not a moral problem.

More here.
https://www.salon.com/2010/12/06/america_collapse_2025/

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/201107...eats.shtml
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/wor...l-spending

I dunno when it will happen, but all empires end.  Besides we'll be colliding with climate change, resource shortages, etc. etc.  Russia got lucky in that they didn't have to experience collisions with some pretty damn big black swans.

Donald Trump is as much a symptom as he is a disease. Despite our potential for widespread prosperity most of us get little from the growth. At this point we must question the merit of the economic growth that Donald Trump and Republicans promise because it comes with greater inequality, more corruption, degradation of the environment (including AGW), and brutal management. Donald Trump believes in gangster economics.

The opioid epidemic reflects that it is easier to treat pain by numbing it (prescription opiates are now almost as cheap as common antibiotics) than to get people into medical treatments and physical therapy that can solve the problems.  Yes, opiates have their legitimate use for short-term and terminal pain. Were I a physician with terminal cancer patients I would be liberal in prescribing opiates to people who need opiates to have some quality of life. But let us also look at meth. I live in a meth-sodden community, and I do not like it.

I have seen neo-Nazi tattoos. It makes me sick to know that people can affiliate with people who murdered millions. Considering that as a smart, liberal, educated German-American I have far more in common in culture and morals with two groups of victims of Nazi genocide (Jews and educated Poles) than I have with Nazis, it is best that I did not confront the creep who showed those. Fascism is the perfect system of beliefs for a sociopath, and it is hardly surprising that neo-Nazi cults flourish in prison...

We should be living in the light of unprecedented prosperity in America, but not only is prosperity ill-shared within communities, it is also ill-shared between communities. There are rich urban areas like Boston, New York City, Washington DC, Austin, San Francisco/Silicon Valley, Seattle, and perhaps San Diego... and poor ones like Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Memphis. In the rich cities one gets gouged for rent, effectively being taxed by private profiteers  for living where the jobs are.

A few people grabbing everything? That is the usual prelude to proletarian revolution or fascistic reaction.

Sure I am a liberal -- but the conservatism that I used to know could not defend this stuff.

[David Horn]

(01-25-2018, 08:38 PM)Mikebert Wrote: There is a fundamental asymmetry that exists in this (4T) era. The party in power cannot get full credit for low unemployment because it doesn’t boost wages, nor can they get full credit for the rising stock market because of bubble fears resulting from recent experience in the post-2000 and post-2007 markets. Yet they will get full blame for any bad stuff that happens. Even if the economy stays good, there is plenty of bad stuff that can happen. It is entirely possible for Republicans to lose the House this November despite record-low unemployment and all-time highs in the stock market.

If Republicans are losing even in the face of the most positive fundamentals possible, what happens when Lady Luck turns against them?

I agree that this is an asymmetric era.  Why is arguable, but the results seem plain.  At the same time the GOP is trotting out its standard talking points, it's also wallowing in conspiracy theories -- more every day.  We have unhinged politics and a radically tilted economy coexisting, and that can't be a stable condition under any circumstances. 

I doubt that the economy, or even the stock market, will collapse in the near term, but they may.  That moves us into the territory that Warren Buffet noted: the receding tide will exposed all the naked swimmers.  Let's assume that this long, non-stop run-up released all the gambling spirits. If that happens, the reckoning will be nasty.  With the US less interconnected to the rest of the world, would the US be taking a solo bath, or are we still a big enough elephant that we would take the rest of the world down with us?

FWIW, the Dems should win at least one house of Congress this time.  That suggests stalemate, which the private sector should love.  Even more gambling?

[Mikebert]

(01-26-2018, 01:40 PM)David Horn Wrote: I agree that this is an asymmetric era.  Why is arguable, but the results seem plain.  At the same time the GOP is trotting out its standard talking points, it's also wallowing in conspiracy theories -- more every day.  We have unhinged politics and a radically tilted economy coexisting, and that can't be a stable condition under any circumstances.

Here is the nub. That the stock market is at 1929 valuations is not deniable.  You can see it for yourself using the handy calculator as Measuring worth.com: The Dow peaked at 381 in 1929.

In 2016, the relative price worth of $381.00 from 1929 is:
$5,340.00 using the Consumer Price Index
$25,600.00 using the nominal GDP per capita

Stocks rise in price because of inflation and economic growth.  The first figure only accounts for inflation. The second for both.  This is the one to use. The calculator only goes to 2016.  You can add about 4% to these figures to get the 2017 value.  So the 1929 market level in today's terms is about 26-27K. Current level is about 26.3 K

If we compare to previous market peaks (here the values are S&P500 since I have data for that index) we find the great bull market peaks in 1881, 1901, 1929, 1966 and 2000 correspond to 1800, 1830, 2320, 1540, and 2510 today, respectively. S&P500 is at 2880 today.

Now the supply side tax cut just passed is designed to (and almost certainly will) increase investment in capital assets, including stocks.  So this tax cut is expected (by design) to increase the index values. It should have similar investment-stimulating effects of the 1997 capital gains tax cut, which was made six months after the Fed had warned of irrational exuberance in the stock market. In today's terms, the Fed's warning came when the S&H was at 1540 and the tax cut was made when the S&P was at 1770.  Compare to the figures above.  The Fed's warning came when the market levels was reaching the 1960's peak, which was the most recent one.  The tax cut came when the market has risen further to levels approaching previous highs in the 19th and early 20th century, but still well below 1929 levels. When the tax cut was passed I concluded that the 1990's would reach all time high valuation by my P/R measure.  I starting pulling out in early 1999, when the S&P was at 2340 in today's terms.

After 2000 I believed the stock market was in a secular bear market which would last until around 2020.  During such periods the market does not rise back to the sorts of highs seen at secular bull market peaks like the ones I showed above. When i wrote my "irrational exuberance" article in 2015 the S&P was at 2320 in today's terms, that is about the same level at which I pulled out in 1999.  I had pulled out before 2015 because I still thought the market was in a secular bear market and would never get to the levels it got to in 2015, much less what has happened after.

So here we are.  Twenty years ago Republicans pass a "bubble act" when the market was at 1770 and got it to go up to 2510 (both values in today's terms) after which we went through two crashes and a financial panic.  Why did they pass a "bubble act" in the first place? The answer is they did not think old valuations applied. The case for this belief was laid out in this book co-authored by Kevin Hassett which argued that stocks in 1999 (today's value 2340) were grossly undervalued and that the Dow would go to about 53K (in today's value) in the next five years.  Hassett is Trump's chief economic advisor. They have not given up on their thesis.

Look what happened when they passed the 1997 bublble act. The market went from 1770 to 2510.  If this happens again the Dow would go to about 35K in today's term, which is STILL undervalued by Hasset's assessment.  Thus, Republicans in Congress honestly do not think their 2017 tax cut is a "bubble act" at all. After all, it is the work of a well-respected economist who was a top advisor not only to the current president, but to the last two Republican nominees.  So he is a completely mainstream Republican figure.

The view I have given is a Bearish or "Value-investor" take.  Safe haven is a bear site.  Gold Eagle (where I have also published) is a bear site.  Bears or value investors tend to be either gold standard paleoconservatives or Democrats (e.g. Mr. Buffet).  So it reflects a certain personality type.  "Bubbly" folks (at least in economics) tend to be Republicans.

As long as the market moves up, there will be no recession and the Republicans will be right, which you can be sure they will crow about.  But suppose they really ARE right?  What does that say?  Read the wiki article on Dow 36K.  The core of their argument is that the risk premium (the extra return from stocks over that of bonds) should be zero. Their tax cut is a big bet that this argument is right (if they are wrong the market will crash we will get a depression and Trump will be another Hoover). So they really believe in the Dow 36K thesis.

The return on a retirement savings account consisting of a mix of stock and bonds will deliver, on average, a real return equal to 1.5 + P*R percent, where P is the fraction in stocks and R is the risk premium. Historically R was 4.5, and so a retirement account 100% in stocks would yield a 6%.  Go to one of those online retirement calculators.  Here's one that has the necessary features https://retirementplans.vanguard.com/VGA...meCalc.jsf

I ran the numbers for an after-tax income 100K assuming a 6% return and one choses to live on 75K of that income and saves  30K (the extra 5K comes from maxing out his before tax 401K contribution). If he starts at 30 and retires at 65K he will have enough generate a 75K retirement income and he will never feel any effects of retirement. (Here I am ignoring SS and any pensions, just looking at pure savings)

In a world where R = 0, the return falls from 6% to 1.5%.  In this situation, the worker lives on 55K and saves 50K and they will  generate about 55K of retirement income. But note than their standard of living has fallen from 75K to 55K for the same income, simply because of the fall in R.  So why would then *want* R to fall?

We now come to *why* R is falling.  It's NOT because of rich people.  Rich people have *always* invested in the markets and they did so for a century during whiich R stayed at a nice high 4.5.  So what's changed?  401Ks, IRAs, and the rise of the idea that *everyone* (not just the rich) should save for retirement.  This has resulted in a steady fall in R over the past 35 years (you can track it in falling dividend yields and rising market valuations).  The whole Dow 36K thesis depends on people mindlessly throwing more and more money into retirement accounts, of which most goes into stocks because bond yields are shit nowadays so that they end up cutting their standard of living down to near poverty levels so that can continue to live at that level after they retire.

I suspect people are going to want to keep their living standards and vote against the Republican plan, by sliding that %stock component in tens of millions of 401Ks down a bit "taking some money off the table" as the market continues to rise.

Republicans are betting their party's future that their base voters won't do that.

Quote:I doubt that the economy, or even the stock market, will collapse in the near term, but they may.  That moves us into the territory that Warren Buffet noted: the receding tide will exposed all the naked swimmers.  Let's assume that this long, non-stop run-up released all the gambling spirits. If that happens, the reckoning will be nasty.  With the US less interconnected to the rest of the world, would the US be taking a solo bath, or are we still a big enough elephant that we would take the rest of the world down with us?

Perhaps

[Eric the Green]

(01-25-2018, 01:33 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-24-2018, 08:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: One thing I've noticed is how many tyrants have appeared and gone beserk in recent times despite the touted "end of history" following the end of the Soviet Union and the birth of many new states and some new democracies in the 1990s.

Human nature, especially of economic and administrative elites, hasn't changed much since the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle or of the Hebrew prophets. The classics remain relevant to Modern Man in ways that we don;t realize until we neglect the lessons. In case someone says that this observation is unduly ethnocentric, one can get a workable order out of Confucius and the Buddha.

Economic and administrative elites have invariably done what they think that they can get away with, whatever their stated ideology. The question is whether they know when to give up. The French Revolution of 1789 had much to say about the Romanian Revolution of 1989 even if the ideologies of Louis XVI and Nicolae Ceausescu were seeming opposites.

History and human nature goes on, and what level of revolution it will take to dislodge the current rebirth of tyranny remains to be seen. Some level will occur in this 4T, and further levels of revolution will occur in the next 2T. How far tyranny is overthrown in these waves remains to be seen.

Quote:

Quote:Now, Turkey has slipped back into the world of thuggery, and Assad of Syria has taken it to a level not seen since Hitler and Pol Pot. This vacuum also opened the way to the horrible Islamic State. The current Isreali thug ruler continues to attack his Palestinian neighbors. Deterte has waged war on his own Filipinos in the name of the drug war, and General Sisi hijacked the Egyptian Arab Spring democratic movement and turned it into virtual tyranny. The Saudi royal family is easing some restrictions while they rain terror and death over their Yemeni neighbors -- even as they now are offering some aid to them. Putin has put the emergent Russian democracy back into the age of the Tsars. Hungary and Poland seem on the verge of fascism, and Venezuela and Brazil are in the grip of corruption, and in the former case of one-man rule despite people massed in the streets against him. Honduras remains in the grip of thuggery too. And the USA put a would-be thug into its Oval Office who is marching that nation back into medieval times as fast as he can.

I now have more fear of what Donald Trump can do to the world than I ever had of Khrushchev or Brezhnev. This is what one gets with a political leader whose style of communication is the schoolyard taunt. This is what one gets with leadership more attentive to personal gain and indulgence than with service to Humanity, someone who ridicules any critic.

Perhaps multicultural tendencies have their own reaction in people circling the wagons against people unlike themselves by culture, religion, and appearance. But we Americans seem to be recognizing that we have a big problem.

Trump is now on the verge of provoking a constitutional crisis, if he fires the new FBI director, the 2nd in command at Justice, and investigator Mueller. I suspect his actions will be sustained by the Republican congress, and that this will be further cause for the voters to remove it. We'll see how far things go in either direction.

Quote:

Quote:....
One thing is sure, more change will come in this 4T, and in the USA the progressive side has always won the 4T battles. If the progressive side loses this time and the Republicans win instead, it will mark the first time that the regressive side has won, and will indicate that the USA is in severe decline. It would not survive as we know it. One thing is sure too: changes in a 4T are never enough, even if the progressive side wins as usual. There is always more needed, and that's where the next 2T comes in to take things to the next level. 

 In Germany (with the arguable exception of the Soviet Zone), Austria, Italy, and Japan, the progressive side won. But the ones who won were foreign Great Powers, even if that was not soon enough to prevent some unspeakable horrors of enslavement and genocide. God help us should America go so bad that it should need foreign liberation in defeat to recover some political decency.

America as an Evil Empire dominant upon the world is one of the worst scenarios possible. To be sure, corruption and cruelty are not good for winning the final struggle. The best way to win a war is to make sure that the other side has nothing left for which to fight. What would be worse? Extinction of civilization, let alone humanity itself.

I was primarily addressing David Horn's concern and our pessimism generally about how bad things are now. Yes they are, but the 4T is going to last another decade, and the real question is whether more change will come in the USA. I predict a lot more progressive change is coming in the next 10 years. I am hoping that the progressive side will win this 4T, as it always has before in our cycle.

Quote:

Quote:But I think we need a progressive victory in the 4T before the next 2T can bring a new Awakening. A reactionary victory in this 4T will result in there being no new Awakening in what is now the USA. There will be no basis for one in society. America cannot recover from a victory by today's regressive faction, which is now in power. Awakenings as we have known them don't happen in societies that are in constant suffering and decline. One reason for this is that there will be no new prophet generation. These generations have always been victory children.

But Germany and Italy had Awakening eras just as strong as ours. So did Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, not as privileged as the non-communist industrialized countries. Japan might not have, but that says more about Japanese culture or that Japanese pop culture didn't then travel well. Sweden, not a participant in World War II, had an Awakening. The repressive regimes of Spain and Portugal were able to put off Awakening Eras until the 1970s. but when the glacial winters of repression died, the flowers could bloom. An Awakening Era depends on some freedom and the perception that the world is a much safer place than it had been.

Yes Europe had its Awakening, thanks to the American victory, so it was their victory too, a peoples' victory. As your recounting of history shows, where this victory in 1945 was slight or non-existent, awakenings did not follow. Eastern Europe did have its 4T victory too, the Soviet victory over the Nazis, though it wasn't a victory for the people so much as for stability and peace. So some level of Awakening did occur, though it was quickly suppressed where it bloomed.

Quote:

Quote:One thing to note well, however. In 4T crises, it has always been uncertain whether the progressive side would win, or whether we instead would slip into a new dark age. It is always darkest before the dawn. The American Revolution hung by a thread many times. The Civil War seemed to go on and on with no end in sight. The Depression seemed never-ending too, and Hitler could have defeated the Allies had he been smarter in his strategy.

Hitler lost the war because he could have never gotten peace except through the extermination of his enemies as he tried with the Jews. In any event I can figure that his style of government would have imploded much as the Soviet order did in the 1980s.  But this is a science-fiction scenario.

The best thing that one can say of a 4T is that people eventually do what they must to preserve what is best in their heritage while undoing the worst, when alternatives (especially giving in to a seeming fate) become unworkable.

Hitler lost the European war because of his atrocities. I can easily imagine Britain accepting a German hegemony over Europe had it not been for Nazi atrocities much as Britain had shown little concern about the Franco-Prussian War.

I'm not sure about that. Britain entered the war because its allies and itself were attacked. Nor did Britain accept German hegemony in 1914, but fought a super-deadly war to prevent it. The important point to remember is that Crises don't seem to be going well while we are in them, but that doesn't mean we won't fight through them and emerge winners.

Quote:

Quote:Awakenings have not always been entirely successful or progressive spiritually, but they DO nevertheless put some momentum behind the changes that happen in the next 4T. Earlier awakenings were traditionally-religious, but uplifting to the spirit. This kind of awakening in the mid-18th century gave momentum to positive changes such as the American Revolution 4T, with a new constitution as its outcome that, while still flawed, was a landmark in human history that inspired the French and then the world. 

The Boom Awakening has not been as rich in consciousness-building literature as the Transcendental and Missionary Awakenings. So far I see some progress in minority-based consciousness... but at this stage of the  4T I see largely the narcissism among economic and administrative elites, and this is much the problem of contemporary America -- people with the power to get practically anything that they want and nobody able to stop them. This said, many Boomers reject this and want something very different -- and they will need Generation X to administer such change and Millennial adults to realize it in work. Donald Trump is not the last act of Boomers, the youngest of which will be in their 60s in the 2020s.

Quote:Since then, our great Awakenings have often been both traditionally-religious and non-conformist spiritual movements. That includes the previous one, which was dominated by non-conformist awakenings through human potential and counter-cultural movements like esalen, est, the hippies and the new agers, which although climaxing early in the 2T, continued throughout and beyond it, and which also helped empower environmental and peace movements as well as diversity awakenings. Later in the 2T came a counter-awakening of a Jesus-freak movement followed by the moral majority and other fundamentalist awakenings that empowered the reactionary political movements still dominant today in red states. This divided awakening has resulted in the red-blue divide that threatens to tear our nation apart in this 4T. I suspect, however, that if the nation holds together, that this divide will pass away or lessen in severity in the following 1T.

There are the libertarian causes... and it looks as if Esalen, est, hippies, and New Age stuff will not be particularly relevant to the future. They are strictly Boom phenomena. As for the Christian Protestant fundamentalists -- they have children. If those children read and contemplate the Bible instead of treating it as a holy icon beyond discovery, they will find out how amoral and immoral their parents are for racism, homophobia, and economic hierarchy.

First of all, as I keep pointing out, there is no such thing as a Boom Awakening. Members of several generations were awakened. It's the Consciousness Revolution, and that's what it was. It was a breakthrough of a new consciousness, and that's what the new age, human potential, counter-culture and hippie movements were. It won't be reversed or fully forgotten, but will keep bursting through, because people can't entirely be fooled into going back to the mechanistic, conformist materialism and phony religion of the old consciousness.

People still want to evolve and grow as human beings, and free themselves from phony, false consciousness. That's what these movements did, and they helped to give momentum to the "libertarian causes" (I assume you mean here the diversity awakenings). The Consciousness Revolution is always relevant to ALL fields of experience and endeavor. And it gave birth to an extensive consciousness-building literature indeed. The human potential and new age movement prophets are legion, and in fact sometimes excellent, even if not familiar enough to a public brainwashed to believe that the counter-culture was nothing but sex, drugs and rock'n'roll. Yet even here, the counter-culture and new age music is as valuable a legacy as the literature, and the psychedelic art also was recognized recently with a great Summer of Love 50th anniversary exhibition in San Francisco's museum.

So "Esalen, est, the hippies and the new age stuff" are the greatest legacy of the 2T, and the most relevant to the future. New Agers and hippies have children too. If they contemplate the lessons from these movements, they will have much ground for rejecting racism, homophobia, and economic hierarchy. I am not so optimistic about the children of Christian fundamentalists in that regard. This is the blue/red split, and much of it will remain for some time. Most white fundamentalist children are continuing in their parents' vein, though not all by any means. And if some of the Xers and Millennials and even Boomers today are not as hooked into the Consciousness Revolution that is their heritage, it will come around again as S&H predict in the next 2T. So even if it takes that long to rev up again, it will not have been "strictly a Boom phenomena." Rediscovery of what it means to be human remains a great awakening awaiting us all, and a great project to further pursue. It can be denied only for so long. There remains a rich heritage from the 2T that is available to us all, if we care to delve into it and sample its delights and its potential to liberate us and help us grow as human beings and as a society of love and respect.

[Eric the Green]

(01-25-2018, 08:00 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Actually, it looks like the US is following the same path the USSR did to the way to
oblivion.

Falling life expectancy, check.
nomenkatura, check.
imperial overstretch, check.
incompetent bureaucracies, check
failing economy, check. It's there, underneath the gilt.  High real unemployment. The headline is fake news.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-r...te-3306198
I'll give Americans this. We use a wider array of substances to numb out the pains of dispair. The drug problem is an environmental problem, not a moral problem.

More here.
https://www.salon.com/2010/12/06/america_collapse_2025/

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/201107...eats.shtml
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/wor...l-spending

I dunno when it will happen, but all empires end.  Besides we'll be colliding with climate change, resource shortages, etc. etc.  Russia got lucky in that they didn't have to experience collisions with some pretty damn big black swans.

Congratulations to our new moderator. I assume your role will not include awarding those birdie trophies?

The USA is in crisis mode, although, being the 1850s redux, the economic recovery seems to cover it up to some extent as it did then, and the full conflict is not yet blazing. But whether the USA is on the way to oblivion won't be clear during the 4T itself. As I pointed out in the post I quoted, it is irrefutable that 4Ts in our cycle have been victorious for the progressive side, and we have moved on to expansion and progress from each 4T we have endured. We are at an early point in the greater world civilization cycle too. All readers of S&H need to keep this in mind. We are not in a mega-unravelling. As I have pointed out multiple times, there is no empirical basis at all for such a judgement, based on what happened during what would be its previous phases. That cycle is bogus; the civilization cycle is well-demonstrated.
http://philosopherswheel.com/fortunes.htm

All empires rise and fall. If we time America according to its full history as a colony of Britain, as well as its history as a republic, it's clear that we are the offshoot of the Renaissance and the Age of Exploration and Colonization. That age ended in circa 1892. So we are in a cycle that is 126 years old, not 240 years old. Our new civilization is still unfolding. European Imperialism, such as it still exists, is a relic of the old Renaissance cycle which has ended. In the 1890s and 1900s, it reached its concluding phases, which rapidly spelled its doom in the following world wars. America had an "empire," but in any official way it ended soon after it began, as the USA soon divested itself of most of its winnings in the 1898 Spanish-American War.

So what then is the "American empire" that is destined to "end?" I wonder what people here think that it is.

I don't think George Bush I's new world order and George Bush II's Project for a New American Century have any legs as sustainable policy. These are flash in the pans of a dying Military Industrial Complex. I don't see this as lasting much longer, and American hegemony, such as it is, has been weak for many years already. We really have multiple centers of power in the world today, and when the USA has tried to dominate and dictate the world's destiny since it defeated the last ghost of European Imperialism in WWII, it has found itself unable to do so. So, the end of the American Empire has come and gone already, and what is necessary now is only for America to realize this fact. Since 1892 the world civilization has dawned, and THAT "empire" will never fall. That is our future forever; the genie can't be put back. All things conspire in favor of globalization (but see qualification below)*. Nationalism and racism are passe. We await our inclusion in the Galactic Federation when we reach maturity as human beings.

So, what about the failed American economy, bureaucracy, life expectancy, etc.? I see these as temporary conditions. We have yet to throw Reaganomics on the scrap heap of history where it belongs. That's what this 4T is mostly about, along with the larger dangers we face if we don't ditch it (climate change, terrorism, etc). Reaganomics, I assert, is the reason for American incompetence today. This is also called neo-liberalism. Free enterprise ideology. In this 4T, the Democrats need to win, or a new progressive movement and the Party it adopts needs to win. There is every precedent that it will win, and we will return to a politics in which mutual contribution to the whole is valued instead of freedom for personal greed. I think it would only take some tax increases, some higher wage minimums and some genuine social and infrastructure programs to remedy all the failings of our economy and government. Throw out neo-liberalism and return to civic responsibility, and STAY THERE; there's no reason the USA can't do this.

*There's also no reason that this return to civic responsibility can't also be applied to our dawning world order and civilization. It does not have to serve a few economic corporate powers, but can be organized to allow all peoples their free place and their prosperity.

Conservatives point to moral decay, to which there is some basis for pointing, considering that our culture is failing as deeply as our economy and bureaucracy. Perhaps a cultural awakening is due. We had one in the sixties, but as always, in America it was subject to commercialization and trivialization, and conservatives disagree with it and blame it for the decay. But it's there, and can be further revived and put on its higher course. Perhaps also, as brower prefers, our classical heritage can also be rediscovered. A revival of education would seem to be needed. I am not convinced that this is impossible. Ethics is part of that heritage, as are the greater truths and experiences of religion and spirituality. The new age and hippies lead in that direction, if the higher spiritual and cultural path is truly followed. If not, then continued debauchery is possible too, surely.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-02-2018, 05:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Congratulations to our new moderator. I assume your role will not include awarding those birdie trophies?

I shall second.

(02-02-2018, 05:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The USA is in crisis mode, although, being the 1850s redux, the economic recovery seems to cover it up to some extent as it did then, and the full conflict is not yet blazing.

If by 'the full conflict is not yet blazing" you mean there has not been a regeneracy, I could be with you. I note that the more challenging years of awakenings and crises are fewer most of the time in their Anglo American incarnations.

I still think Bush 43's Iraq War II had a crisis sized and values changing side to it. Bush 43's years might have been the first half of a multiple crisis.

[Eric the Green]

(02-03-2018, 06:17 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-02-2018, 05:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Congratulations to our new moderator. I assume your role will not include awarding those birdie trophies?

I shall second.

(02-02-2018, 05:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The USA is in crisis mode, although, being the 1850s redux, the economic recovery seems to cover it up to some extent as it did then, and the full conflict is not yet blazing.

If by 'the full conflict is not yet blazing" you mean there has not been a regeneracy, I could be with you.  I note that the more challenging years of awakenings and crises are fewer most of the time in their Anglo American incarnations.

I still think Bush 43's Iraq War II had a crisis sized and values changing side to it.  Bush 43's years might have been the first half of a multiple crisis.

I might agree only in the sense that the challenge of terrorism is ongoing since 2001, and America's involvement in the Middle East has not ended since then. Of course Bush's invasion in 2003 is not a change in values in any other sense; his project for a new american century is defunct, and his proposal of preventive wars was discredited and will NOT be a value change.

[Bob Butler 54]

In the original sense of the thread, I'm back in Plymouth, coming from my sister's place in Weymouth. I am still recovering, but hopefully capable of living with a sense of autonomy. Not an entire sense. I have paid a resident's Massachusetts share and enjoyed being part of a joint economy.

I can see a major values change as Pbower has noted elsewhere. In terms of not tolerating abusers of women and many other issues we do see a time of many changing values. Yet, many economic values have not yet convincingly been put on the table. Climate change and division of wealth have yet to be addressed in a traditional sense. Tump is not yet a anti hero, a counter example of values on the scale of Buchanan or Hover.

This was not the crisis I would have anticipated, but there is a major collective values change potentially.

[pbrower2a]

(02-09-2018, 03:45 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: In the original sense of the thread, I'm back in Plymouth, coming from my sister's place in Weymouth.  I am still recovering, but hopefully capable of living with a sense of autonomy.  Not an entire sense.  I have paid a resident's Massachusetts share and enjoyed being part of a joint economy.

I can see a major values change as Pbower has noted elsewhere.  In terms of not tolerating abusers of women and many other issues we do see a time of many changing values.  Yet, many economic values have not yet convincingly been put on the table.  Climate change and division of wealth have yet to be addressed in a traditional sense.  Trump is not yet a anti hero, a counter example of values on the scale of Buchanan or Hover.

This was not the crisis I would have anticipated, but there is a major collective values change potentially.

The fecal matter must hit the proverbial fan before we recognize how bad things are.

I hardly expect our economic elites to abandon the idea that the rest of Humanity has an obligation to put their gain, indulgence, and power above even the  survival of the children of the rest of Humanity. Such elites historically do not back down until they see themselves in danger or find their world collapsing. Such people expect the people whom they exploit to see those elites as their benefactors. A lapdog like Paul Ryan can make much of a working person getting $60 more a year through a tax cut so that the Koch family can get an astronomical reward for buying our political system.

The fault with Buchanan was not his values; it was that he was not up to a political reality spiraling out of control. Hoover simply bungled an economic meltdown even if he was overall a decent person. Many already believe that Donald Trump is either grossly incompetent or outright evil, if not both. Evil and incompetent leadership never get good results.

Government by lobbyist is not democracy. That must go.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-09-2018, 05:00 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(02-09-2018, 03:45 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: In the original sense of the thread, I'm back in Plymouth, coming from my sister's place in Weymouth.  I am still recovering, but hopefully capable of living with a sense of autonomy.  Not an entire sense.  I have paid a resident's Massachusetts share and enjoyed being part of a joint economy.

I can see a major values change as Pbower has noted elsewhere.  In terms of not tolerating abusers of women and many other issues we do see a time of many changing values.  Yet, many economic values have not yet convincingly been put on the table.  Climate change and division of wealth have yet to be addressed in a traditional sense.  Trump is not yet a anti hero, a counter example of values on the scale of Buchanan or Hover.

This was not the crisis I would have anticipated, but there is a major collective values change potentially.

The fecal matter must hit the proverbial fan before we recognize how bad things are.

I hardly expect our economic elites to abandon the idea that the rest of Humanity has an obligation to put their gain, indulgence, and power above even the  survival of the children of the rest of Humanity. Such elites historically do not back down until they see themselves in danger or find their world collapsing. Such people expect the people whom they exploit to see those elites as their benefactors. A lapdog like Paul Ryan can make much of a working person getting $60 more a year through a tax cut so that the Koch family can get an astronomical reward for buying our political system.

The fault with Buchanan was not his values; it was that he was not up to a political reality spiraling out of control. Hoover simply bungled an economic meltdown even if he was overall a decent person. Many already believe that Donald Trump is either grossly incompetent or outright evil, if not both. Evil and incompetent  leadership never get good results.

Government by lobbyist is not democracy. That must go.

Buchanan was with the southerners, who wanted to preserve slavery.  Hoover did not see the government as having a role to play in regulating the economy.  I count both as clinging to older sets of values, in not seeing anything wrong in letting dire problems continue to exist, in not perceiving a need for basic transformation.  In that, they were similar to today's abusers of women or climate change deniers.  Some conservatives cling to older privileges.  Some conservatives do not act to solve problems.

And of course, there is the division of wealth and power.  What is theirs they want to keep.  The progressives, too, will have a similar motive.  For some, the moral motives are just a side ploy that attracts people to join their cause. Others truly care.

[Mikebert]

(02-09-2018, 08:08 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-09-2018, 05:00 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(02-09-2018, 03:45 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: In the original sense of the thread, I'm back in Plymouth, coming from my sister's place in Weymouth.  I am still recovering, but hopefully capable of living with a sense of autonomy.  Not an entire sense.  I have paid a resident's Massachusetts share and enjoyed being part of a joint economy.

I can see a major values change as Pbower has noted elsewhere.  In terms of not tolerating abusers of women and many other issues we do see a time of many changing values.  Yet, many economic values have not yet convincingly been put on the table.  Climate change and division of wealth have yet to be addressed in a traditional sense.  Trump is not yet a anti hero, a counter example of values on the scale of Buchanan or Hover.

This was not the crisis I would have anticipated, but there is a major collective values change potentially.

The fecal matter must hit the proverbial fan before we recognize how bad things are.

I hardly expect our economic elites to abandon the idea that the rest of Humanity has an obligation to put their gain, indulgence, and power above even the  survival of the children of the rest of Humanity. Such elites historically do not back down until they see themselves in danger or find their world collapsing. Such people expect the people whom they exploit to see those elites as their benefactors. A lapdog like Paul Ryan can make much of a working person getting $60 more a year through a tax cut so that the Koch family can get an astronomical reward for buying our political system.

The fault with Buchanan was not his values; it was that he was not up to a political reality spiraling out of control. Hoover simply bungled an economic meltdown even if he was overall a decent person. Many already believe that Donald Trump is either grossly incompetent or outright evil, if not both. Evil and incompetent  leadership never get good results.

Government by lobbyist is not democracy. That must go.

Buchanan was with the southerners, who wanted to preserve slavery.  Hoover did not see the government as having a role to play in regulating the economy.  I count both as clinging to older sets of values, in not seeing anything wrong in letting dire problems continue to exist, in not perceiving a need for basic transformation.  In that, they were similar to today's abusers of women or climate change deniers.  Some conservatives cling to older privileges.  Some conservatives do not act to solve problems.

And of course, there is the division of wealth and power.  What is theirs they want to keep.  The progressives, too, will have a similar motive.  For some, the moral motives are just a side ploy that attracts people to join their cause. Others truly care.

Along your line of values lock.  Are you familiar with Stephen Skowronek's political time model? He holds that there have been several reconstructive presidents (Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, Reagan) who have set a new dominant political ideology. We are currently living under the Reagan dispensation. Until this dispensation passes, obvious policies like a $3 trillion stimulus passed by a 60 seat Democratic majority in 2009 do not get done. Had Democrats done this then Obama would be reconstructive. 

But they didn't so Obama ended up as pre-emptive, Skowronek's name for presidents (e.g. Clinton, Nixon, Eisenhower) from the opposition party to the governing dispensation who try to "preempt" the discourse, redirecting the interpretation of the reigning dispensation in terms more favorable to their party.  Thing Clinton's declaration that "the era of big government is over" with his expansion of CHIP and increase in the Earned Income credit, and think of Eisenhower's decision to not challenge the New Deal, but instead to create a Republican-controlled "military-industrial complex" to offset the Democratic-controlled "social welfare state".

Presidents from the same party as the reconstructive president (e.g. Bush I& II for Reagan, and Truman, Kennedy and Johnson for FDR) are called articulative presidents.  These are the largest category and are not of interest here.

Most interesting are the disjunctive presidents.  These come for the same party as the reconstructive party, at a time when their dispensation in under attack. They have the unhappy job of dealing with the consequences of the failure of their party's ideology to deal with the problems of the time. Examples include JQ Adams, Pierce & Buchanan, Hoover and Carter. Note these guys were president just before or during a social moment.

Right now Trump is third Republican interlude since the Reagan dispensation began.  This makes him like Carter for FDR,  Harding for Lincoln, Buchanan for Jackson, and JQ Adams for Jefferson. Three of these are disjunctive, but Harding is not. The Harding connection is interesting because Trump most closely resembles the current time by other cycle measures I use.

So my prediction, based on historical analogy is 75% probably Trump ends up as disjunctive (and so is not reelected) and 25% probability he ends up as articulative and so wins reelection.

[pbrower2a]

(02-11-2018, 05:18 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(02-09-2018, 08:08 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Buchanan was with the southerners, who wanted to preserve slavery.  Hoover did not see the government as having a role to play in regulating the economy.  I count both as clinging to older sets of values, in not seeing anything wrong in letting dire problems continue to exist, in not perceiving a need for basic transformation.  In that, they were similar to today's abusers of women or climate change deniers.  Some conservatives cling to older privileges.  Some conservatives do not act to solve problems.

And of course, there is the division of wealth and power.  What is theirs they want to keep.  The progressives, too, will have a similar motive.  For some, the moral motives are just a side ploy that attracts people to join their cause. Others truly care.

Along your line of values lock.  Are you familiar with Stephen Skowronek's political time model? He holds that there have been several reconstructive presidents (Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, Reagan) who have set a new dominant political ideology. We are currently living under the Reagan dispensation. Until this dispensation passes, obvious policies like a $3 trillion stimulus passed by a 60 seat Democratic majority in 2009 do not get done. Had Democrats done this then Obama would be reconstructive. 

But they didn't so Obama ended up as pre-emptive, Skowronek's name for presidents (e.g. Clinton, Nixon, Eisenhower) from the opposition party to the governing dispensation who try to "preempt" the discourse, redirecting the interpretation of the reigning dispensation in terms more favorable to their party.  Thing Clinton's declaration that "the era of big government is over" with his expansion of CHIP and increase in the Earned Income credit, and think of Eisenhower's decision to not challenge the New Deal, but instead to create a Republican-controlled "military-industrial complex" to offset the Democratic-controlled "social welfare state".

Presidents from the same party as the reconstructive president (e.g. Bush I& II for Reagan, and Truman, Kennedy and Johnson for FDR) are called articulative presidents.  These are the largest category and are not of interest here.

Most interesting are the disjunctive presidents.  These come for the same party as the reconstructive party, at a time when their dispensation in under attack. They have the unhappy job of dealing with the consequences of the failure of their party's ideology to deal with the problems of the time. Examples include JQ Adams, Pierce & Buchanan, Hoover and Carter. Note these guys were president just before or during a social moment.

Right now Trump is third Republican interlude since the Reagan dispensation began.  This makes him like Carter for FDR,  Harding for Lincoln, Buchanan for Jackson, and JQ Adams for Jefferson. Three of these are disjunctive, but Harding is not. The Harding connection is interesting because Trump most closely resembles the current time by other cycle measures I use.

So my prediction, based on historical analogy is 75% probably Trump ends up as disjunctive (and so is not reelected) and 25% probability he ends up as articulative and so wins reelection.

We are approaching the time of a social moment, and  it is unlikely that President Trump will fit that moment. Unlike Reagan he is unable to convince the other side to yield anything. Even worse, he disappoints many who supported him initially with their votes.

We have yet to have any debacles of foreign policy, and so far the economy is humming along -- but current polls suggest that he is wildly unpopular. So just imagine what happens if the economy goes in the tank. Articulative? If you mean 'articulate' -- he most certainly isn't. He is a 'My Way or the Highway' leader, someone that one can back only if the organization behind one lavishes its employees or clients with income or business opportunities. I prefer organizations that need not throw money at supporters to satisfy them.

I could of course repeat my assessment of his faults as a leader, but by now that would be boring. The question is whether he can change his ways.  I see him too rigid to change his ways if things require a change in approach. Shoddy ethics are difficult to reform.

He certainly is not a Great Restorer even if he called people to "Make America Great Again". When was America better without qualification? Maybe life was easier in certain respects at times or that opportunities that seem  obvious now (like settling on the western frontier or getting in on the ground floor of 1970s high technology) seem to be missing. Never mind that much  of the West was a harsh and unforgiving land, and that many "tech" start-ups went belly-up quickly or required personalities that many lacked.

Now here is a kicker: there might not be a Great Restorer forty years or so after the  last  one (in our case, Reagan's 'Morning in America' is now almost forty years ago). Maybe we have a social moment and a President ill-suited to it. Cleveland? B. Harrison? McKinley? Theodore Roosevelt may be by far the best President between Lincoln and FDR, and (1) he was an accident of a tragedy (the assassination of McKinley), and (2) his reforms were intended to forestall any revolutionary change.

Can we have a social moment with a President who bungles the moment politically? That would be a disjunctive President in the extreme. At the worst we could have a President in office at the time of the imposition of a rotten new social order who rides that perverse tide. For some, a combination  of cheap labor, brutal management, monopolistic business, and a legal system that punishes anyone who opposes such would be wish fulfillment for the profiteers of such an order and a nightmare for everyone else. Our economic elites often see their  own gain and indulgence as the definitive Good and that anyone who dissents with such as criminal. That would be an America with Gulags.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-11-2018, 05:18 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(02-09-2018, 08:08 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Buchanan was with the southerners, who wanted to preserve slavery.  Hoover did not see the government as having a role to play in regulating the economy.  I count both as clinging to older sets of values, in not seeing anything wrong in letting dire problems continue to exist, in not perceiving a need for basic transformation.  In that, they were similar to today's abusers of women or climate change deniers.  Some conservatives cling to older privileges.  Some conservatives do not act to solve problems.

And of course, there is the division of wealth and power.  What is theirs they want to keep.  The progressives, too, will have a similar motive.  For some, the moral motives are just a side ploy that attracts people to join their cause. Others truly care.

Along your line of values lock.  Are you familiar with Stephen Skowronek's political time model? He holds that there have been several reconstructive presidents (Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, Reagan) who have set a new dominant political ideology. We are currently living under the Reagan dispensation. Until this dispensation passes, obvious policies like a $3 trillion stimulus passed by a 60 seat Democratic majority in 2009 do not get done. Had Democrats done this then Obama would be reconstructive. 

But they didn't so Obama ended up as pre-emptive, Skowronek's name for presidents (e.g. Clinton, Nixon, Eisenhower) from the opposition party to the governing dispensation who try to "preempt" the discourse, redirecting the interpretation of the reigning dispensation in terms more favorable to their party.  Thing Clinton's declaration that "the era of big government is over" with his expansion of CHIP and increase in the Earned Income credit, and think of Eisenhower's decision to not challenge the New Deal, but instead to create a Republican-controlled "military-industrial complex" to offset the Democratic-controlled "social welfare state".

Presidents from the same party as the reconstructive president (e.g. Bush I& II for Reagan, and Truman, Kennedy and Johnson for FDR) are called articulative presidents.  These are the largest category and are not of interest here.

Most interesting are the disjunctive presidents.  These come for the same party as the reconstructive party, at a time when their dispensation in under attack. They have the unhappy job of dealing with the consequences of the failure of their party's ideology to deal with the problems of the time. Examples include JQ Adams, Pierce & Buchanan, Hoover and Carter. Note these guys were president just before or during a social moment.

Right now Trump is third Republican interlude since the Reagan dispensation began.  This makes him like Carter for FDR,  Harding for Lincoln, Buchanan for Jackson, and JQ Adams for Jefferson. Three of these are disjunctive, but Harding is not. The Harding connection is interesting because Trump most closely resembles the current time by other cycle measures I use.

So my prediction, based on historical analogy is 75% probably Trump ends up as disjunctive (and so is not reelected) and 25% probability he ends up as articulative and so wins reelection.

I am less familiar with Stephen Skowronek's system than S&H's.  I can see Skowronek.  I always saw Reagan as defining an unravelling.  There is room for similar presidents who define a unraveling (or high) movement.  You might end up with two Skowronek movements, one progressive, one conservative, per full S&H cycle.  A Skowronek period of a dominant value set starts with someone who defines the new way of seeing things, has presidents who follow that path while the opposition resists and redirects, and ends with the values not fitting as well, looking bad by the standard of the following values.

I am more tempted to translate between systems than say one is good and one is bad.  They are just emphasizing different things.

[Mikebert]

I am finishing a draft of a new paper.  This one is on long cycles, fifty-year (two generation) cycles. Examples include Kondratieff cycles, the War cycle, the Klingberg foreign policy cycle, the Turchin "fathers and sons cycle" in sociopolitical instability, and Huntington's periodic creedal passion periods. The S&H saeculum is a pair of inner-directed and outer-directed long cycles.

Turchin’s social contagion model characterizes “fathers and sons” periods of violence as resulting from outbreaks of a violence-promoting radical social mood. These are considered as analogous to disease outbreaks at the beginning of an epidemic and are modeled using a similar approach. The politically-active population, consisting of people aged 21 to 21+C is divided into C age cohorts. Each cohort is divided into three categories: naïve individuals (N), radicals ®, and moderates (M). Those entering the first age cohort (age 21) are naïve. Each year naïve individuals may become radicalized by contact with radicals (this is analogous to the uninfected contracting an infectious disease by contact with the infected). Similarly, radicals in that cohort may become disenchanted with radicalism after spending a certain amount of time (τ) as a radical in which case they become a moderate (this is analogous to an infected recovering from the disease). After a year has passed, the cohort moves to the next higher age with the proportion of naïve individuals, radicals and moderates adjusted for the effects of naïve radicalization and recovery from radicalism.
Radicalization occurs from contact with radicals, but the effectives of this contact is negatively affected by the presence of moderates. I implemented the model on a spreadsheet and the plot shows nice fifty year cycles in radical number and moderate number that are out of phase by τ years (τ is the time for recovery from radicalism).

The model fits the sociopolitical instability (SPI), a combination of SPI and religious event frequency (an awakening measure) I call sociopolitical and cultural instability (SPCI) and the Klingberg cycles of alternating extroverted/introverted American foreign policy. I also found it did a good job of fitting the war cycle and the associated Kondratieffs, here in place of radicalism, I use “hawkishness” or “war fever”.  John Xenakis has a somewhat similar “social mood” operative in his cycle, but I think (IIRC) it is mechanistically somewhat different. I don’t think “contagion” would be a good analogy to his cycle dynamics.

Anyways I am pleased with Turchin’s model. It’s the first pretty useful math model I have encountered that can explain a number of these long cycles.

It doesn’t work for the saeculum though. Dynamically the saeculum is similar to political cycles, which interestingly enough, can be modeled with an explicitly generational model inspired by S&H. However, the saeculum is not the same as the political cycle, which has six “turnings” over a period roughly corresponding to the Civil War saeculum (1789-1877) instead of the four over 1794-1865. What makes the political cycle and saeculum different from the long cycles is the Depression and WW II is a crisis era in these cycles, whereas its not in the long cycles.  For example, WW II is anomalous in the war-hegemony cycle theories, whereas it is a key feature in S&H, the political cycles and Generational Dynamics. 

So SCM is useful but its only a piece of the puzzle. long. Examples include Kondratieff’s, the War cycle, Klingberg's foreign policy cycle, Turchin's "fathers and sons cycle" in sociopolitical instability, and Huntington's periodic creedal passion periods etc. The S&H saeculum is a double long cycle, one inner-directed and one outer.
Turchin’s social contagion model characterizes “fathers and sons” periods of violence as resulting from outbreaks of a violence-promoting radical social mood. These are considered as analogous to disease outbreaks at the beginning of an epidemic and are modeled using a similar approach. The politically-active population, consisting of people aged 21 to 21+C is divided into C age cohorts. Each cohort is divided into three categories: naïve individuals (N), radicals ®, and moderates (M). Those entering the first age cohort (age 21) are naïve. Each year naïve individuals may become radicalized by contact with radicals (this is analogous to the uninfected contracting an infectious disease by contact with the infected). Similarly, radicals in that cohort may become disenchanted with radicalism after spending a certain amount of time (τ) as a radical in which case they become a moderate (this is analogous to an infected recovering from the disease). After a year has passed, the cohort moves to the next higher age with the proportion of naïve individuals, radicals and moderates adjusted for the effects of naïve radicalization and recovery from radicalism.

Anyways I am pleased with Turchin’s model it’s the first pretty useful math model I have encountered that can explain a number of these long cycles.

It doesn’t work for the saeculum though. Dynamically the saeculum is similar to political cycles, which interestingly enough can be modeled with an explicitly generational model inspired by S&H. However, the saeculum is not the same as the political cycle, which has six “turnings” over a period roughly corresponding to the Civil War saeculum (1789-1877) instead of the four over 1794-1865. What makes the political cycle and saeculum different from the long cycles is the Depression and WW II is a crisis era in these cycles, whereas its not in the long cycles.  WW II is anomalous in the war-hegemony cycle theories, whereas it is a key feature in S&H, the political cycles and Generational Dynamics. So SCM is useful but its only a piece of the puzzle.

[Tim Randal Walker]

(01-04-2018, 11:10 PM)Bob Butler 1954 Wrote: More than a bit ago I had a bunch of disasters hit at the same time.  A benign brain tumor, slow growing, manifested enough pressure to upset balance, hearing, sight and nerves sensing and controlling the left side of my face.  My computer died.  A tropical depression in combination with my loss of balance caused a fall which resulted in significant enough brusing to leave me in the hospital.  They also removed the tumor.  The combination of disasters resulted in an absence from these boards of months.

I'm currently living in my sister's house and using her computer.  The abilities lost are slowly recovering, at least some of them.  

I am sorry about your misfortunes, Bob.  

Good luck!

[Tim Randal Walker]

The hegemonic cycle is interesting, Mikebert.

The last change in hegemon-the USA replacing Britain-was anomalous in that there was no war between the two powers. This was investigated in the book Safe Passage by Kori Schake. (327.114097, as shelved in the public library). She concluded that the peaceful change was due to unique circumstances.

[Mikebert]

(03-15-2018, 07:02 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: The hegemonic cycle is interesting, Mikebert.

The last change in hegemon-the USA replacing Britain-was anomalous in that there was no war between the two powers.  This was investigated in the book Safe Passage by Kori Schake.  (327.114097, as shelved in the public library).   She concluded that the peaceful change was due to unique circumstances.

I am using the Modelski and Thompson Leadership cycle.  The hegemons in this cycle are Portugal, Netherlands, Britain and America. They tend to both be on the winning side of the hegemonic war that separate hegemonic cycles. They is an alternate scheme, sometimes called the Wallerstein scheme, that had the hegemonic powers as Spain, France, Britain, US. In this system the Britain->US transition is anomalous. Schake is probably operating with the Wallerstein scheme.

I will be first to admit that the Wallerstein scheme makes more sense if you just look at the international politics by itself. I chose the leadership cycle because it corresponds to the S&H saeculum and can be considered as a pair of long cycles (I came to the T4T site in 2000 coming from a Kondratieff perspective). It is when you start to consider multiple cycles that the Leadership cycle makes more sense.

[Bob Butler 54]

I would say no.  The marchers in Washington were not there primarily to wish Mike a happy birthday.

That is only a secondary consideration.