Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Well, I'm back
#41
(01-15-2018, 01:12 PM)David Horn Wrote: [quote pid='34169' dateline='1515959701']
I'm still surprised by how little economics seems to play.  The righteous anger is still reserved for the cultural issues, that can't be resolved through politics, and won't be resolved until the true believers pass from the scene.  A 2T-like period might be all we can expect, though the underlying economic issues scream 4T at the top of their lungs.  I suspect this won't get resolved while I'm still around.

[/quote]
I got ahead of myself and charged off point. I'' try to stay on track here. Starting off as before...

Were economic issues screaming in the years leading up to 2008? Social issues were, remember how (opposition to) gay marriage was supposedly key to the Republican victory in 2004?  Was the 2008 campaign about the economy, like 1992 was?  I seem to recall the big issues were the Iraq war and health care. I don't believe economic inequality even moved into public consciousness until the Occupy movement in 2011. Contrast this with the muckrakers who had raised consciousness of the plight of the underclass by 1906, and certainly by the time of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire in 1911 (and yet would be 20+ years before anyone took effective action).

Where I was going before I wandered off into that intriguing analogy was that according the PSI model, economic inequality issues were not supposed  to be the big issue in 2008, that's what low PSI means.  PSI is high now, and sure enough, economics is a big issue now.  But what sets the table for the political moment (according to the model) is the situation at the beginning of the moment, when the dominant generation first arrives at the scene.  As I pointed out above economic inequality wasn't the big issue on the Left in 2008.

The progressive political moment (1896-1919) also had  low PSI when it started in 1896 (lower than 2008). PSI rose over the next two decades but by the time it began to approach 4T-like dimensions, the dominant generation had left the scene.  The progressive political moment, like other 2Ts, and like today, had rising radicalization. Radicalization in a non-4T environment generates a 2T.  This means that the current political moment that began in 2008 has a lot of 2T character.  I am sure you have noticed the 2T-like character of the current moment with social/cultural movements like LBGTQ-rights, #Me Too, and BLM.  Of these BLM has the most economic character, but economics is not front and center.  One of the two economic movements, Occupy, has faded from the scene, and the other, the Tea Party, has been converted from a fiscally-focused movement to a cultural movement by the alt-right. 

The model suggests this political moment will turn out to be a second 2T, unless we get another crisis trigger (of an economic type) before the dominant generation leaves the scene in around 2023.  The capitalist crisis hypothesis suggests that the next recession should see a very large stock market decline that ought to induce a financial crisis, which if unopposed, or addressed with tax cuts, should produce a recession more serious than any other postwar recession.  If it is large enough to be considered an economic collapse (i.e. like the one in 1929) it could serve as a economic crisis trigger to induce and economic response, which if effective will create a lasting political dividend for the party doing it.

Presumably the market decline will be before 2020, Democrats will win big in 2020, and facing a deep recession, will finally enact policy to turn things around and so NOT get hammered in 2022. If they can manage to do that, it will pay off in spades for them as they will win the next two political elections.  In other words a Democratic Reagan will come to power in 2020, and Trump will be a Skowronek "disjunctive" president like Carter.
Reply
#42
(01-15-2018, 10:47 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Both idiots and the value-locked are impossible to convince. The idiot has nothing to convince. The value-locked have nothing more to convince.
Which one are you, an idiot or value-locked?
Reply
#43
(01-17-2018, 06:35 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(01-15-2018, 10:47 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Both idiots and the value-locked are impossible to convince. The idiot has nothing to convince. The value-locked have nothing more to convince.

Which one are you, an idiot or value-locked?

Neither. I consider myself very flexible in my criticism of this awful President. I can offer conservative arguments against him. He is not a conservative, and his supposed Christianity is nearly pure sentimentality with no morals.

This is a cruel, corrupt, dishonest, despotic, incompetent leader; one cannot defend such with any ideological defense.  Her needs a cult of personality.

Can't you recognize, as does Senator Jeff Flake, that a President who calls any derogatory news story about him 'fake news' and call his detractors 'enemies of the people'* -- a term used widely against people doomed for their opposition of Josef Stalin -- is a menace to democracy itself? Yes, that horrible man.

*FDR and J. Edgar Hoover did use the word "public enemy", but this was against outright gangsters and such modern-day brigands as John Dillinger. Never against political opponents.
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool" -- William Shakespeare, As You Like It, V.i


Reply
#44
(01-16-2018, 06:40 PM)Mikebert Wrote:
(01-15-2018, 01:12 PM)David Horn Wrote: I'm still surprised by how little economics seems to play.  The righteous anger is still reserved for the cultural issues, that can't be resolved through politics, and won't be resolved until the true believers pass from the scene.  A 2T-like period might be all we can expect, though the underlying economic issues scream 4T at the top of their lungs.  I suspect this won't get resolved while I'm still around.

I got ahead of myself and charged off point. I'' try to stay on track here. Starting off as before...

Were economic issues screaming in the years leading up to 2008? Social issues were, remember how (opposition to) gay marriage was supposedly key to the Republican victory in 2004?  Was the 2008 campaign about the economy, like 1992 was?  I seem to recall the big issues were the Iraq war and health care. I don't believe economic inequality even moved into public consciousness until the Occupy movement in 2011. Contrast this with the muckrakers who had raised consciousness of the plight of the underclass by 1906, and certainly by the time of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire in 1911 (and yet would be 20+ years before anyone took effective action).

Where I was going before I wandered off into that intriguing analogy was that according the PSI model, economic inequality issues were not supposed  to be the big issue in 2008, that's what low PSI means.  PSI is high now, and sure enough, economics is a big issue now.  But what sets the table for the political moment (according to the model) is the situation at the beginning of the moment, when the dominant generation first arrives at the scene.  As I pointed out above economic inequality wasn't the big issue on the Left in 2008.

The progressive political moment (1896-1919) also had  low PSI when it started in 1896 (lower than 2008). PSI rose over the next two decades but by the time it began to approach 4T-like dimensions, the dominant generation had left the scene.  The progressive political moment, like other 2Ts, and like today, had rising radicalization. Radicalization in a non-4T environment generates a 2T.  This means that the current political moment that began in 2008 has a lot of 2T character.  I am sure you have noticed the 2T-like character of the current moment with social/cultural movements like LBGTQ-rights, #Me Too, and BLM.  Of these BLM has the most economic character, but economics is not front and center.  One of the two economic movements, Occupy, has faded from the scene, and the other, the Tea Party, has been converted from a fiscally-focused movement to a cultural movement by the alt-right. 

The model suggests this political moment will turn out to be a second 2T, unless we get another crisis trigger (of an economic type) before the dominant generation leaves the scene in around 2023.  The capitalist crisis hypothesis suggests that the next recession should see a very large stock market decline that ought to induce a financial crisis, which if unopposed, or addressed with tax cuts, should produce a recession more serious than any other postwar recession.  If it is large enough to be considered an economic collapse (i.e. like the one in 1929) it could serve as a economic crisis trigger to induce and economic response, which if effective will create a lasting political dividend for the party doing it.

Presumably the market decline will be before 2020, Democrats will win big in 2020, and facing a deep recession, will finally enact policy to turn things around and so NOT get hammered in 2022. If they can manage to do that, it will pay off in spades for them as they will win the next two political elections.  In other words a Democratic Reagan will come to power in 2020, and Trump will be a Skowronek "disjunctive" president like Carter.

This all sounds more than reasonable, but it hangs by the thread I highlighted two paragraphs above.  I'm expecting a huge correction (collapse?) soon enough to do exactly what you posited, but that may be wishful thinking on my part.  What happens if the stock market rally persists until 2030, and then there is a crash of the market?  Alternately, we get a period with no further growth but no collapse either (this assumes that there is a minimal amount of gambling going on, so maybe not).

I don't see the current model being viable for the long term, and waiting to resolve the issue of capitalism-as-it-is until the next 4T seems far fetched.  If not soon, then when.  If not in a progressive vein, are we headed for autocracy?
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#45
Ha! Found the password for my old account...
Reply
#46
(01-18-2018, 03:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Ha!  Found the password for my old account...

Good for you!  If I didn't have an app that does that for me, I wouldn't know any of my passwords.   Big Grin
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#47
It wasn't an app. I finally have a new computer, and plugged in a disk drive from my old computer that died. There was a hint I was able to interpret...
Reply
#48
(01-18-2018, 03:26 PM)David Horn Wrote: What happens if the stock market rally persists until 2030, and then there is a crash of the market?  Alternately, we get a period with no further growth but no collapse either (this assumes that there is a minimal amount of gambling going on, so maybe not).

This is what I call the Dow 36,000 scenario, after the 1999 book co-written by Kevin Hassett, Trump's top economic advisor. Basically it calls for a continuation of the bull for years after 2000.  Another book called Dow 100,000 came out in 1999 that forecast this value by 2020. In Stock Cycles I developed a model that did a good job of explaining the rising market of the 1990's.  Basically it showed that if the economic expansion continued until 2007 we would see Dow 35,000 and if it went to 2016 we would see Dow 100,000.  As I wrote then (Jan 2000): "but a 17-26 year economic expansion would have to occur for these wondrous results to come to pass."

For today it would be Dow 100K by 2026 and 250K by 2035.  If this happened this will mean a new era has truly dawned and trees really do grow to the sky. Such market rise implies Republicans would win in 2020 and again in 2024.  Trump would become a Reconstructive president and we would date the start of the 4T in 2010, when Republicans began the long recovery from the disaster of the Obama years (recall history is written by the winners). The 4T would come to an end around 2028, when the opposition party wins. The immigration issue would be resolved by implementation of a 1924-like law to restrict non-white immigrants. Harsh treatment of illegals will send many of them back to their countries of origin. Americans who manage to keep good jobs will benefit from huge gains in their 401k which new laws will allow then to tap for current spending like folks did with their homes under Bush. Other Americans will end up living in the American version of favelas edge of trash dumps survivng by picking through garbage like Freegans.

It will have been a real 4T.  In 2000, I wrote that the Dow 36,000 theory was garbage, that the market would not continue to rise to 36K by 2005 or 100K by 2020, but that a secular bear market would begin soon.  Shortly afterward it looked that this was happening.  But in 2002 I did my analysis of market cycles using generation theory, and concluded that the secular bear market would last to 2020 or so. That future is nearly gone now.  For it to happen, a bear market would have to start ths year and the Dow fall to the 6000's around 2020.  If we do stop having recessions and the market rises forever, then the concept of stock market cycles is no longer valid. There will be no crash, the world will have changed, and that change will be the structural change that is the core feature of the 4T.

This scenario is *not* what we call a "failed 4T". This will simply be one in which the Right wins. Although the end of what we had known as business cycles may seem like magic, one could say it was a miracle, the result of divine intervention on the behalf of the Republicans, the new "Party of God" after their destruction of Hezbollah (the old Party of God) in the Iran war.

Another option would be a true failed 4T. The market rises until the end of next year, then starts to drift down in 2020, but no recession begins until 4Q 2020.  Republicans win narrowly in 2020, before the recession gets underway, but lose big in 2022 and 2024. The 2010's business cycle is unusually long, but it does not destroy the idea of business cycles, the recession does eventually happen. The 3T political stalemate continues, and all the energy remains with social movements. Or the recession comes sooner, Democrats win in 2020 and screw the pooch like they did in 2009, and we have Obama II.

In either of these cases the political moment maps out as a 2T, with some 4T overtones, basically something like the Progressive era. The models are up in the air about whether this political moment will end up as a 2T or 4T, either can happen.  What the models forbid is the scenario I described above.  A 4T, according to the models, is associated with a trend change from rising to falling inequality. 

The three models would say "the Right wins" scenario is a 2T.  They would actually call for what you propose, a decline around 2030.  But a rise to 2030 would create such crazy valuations in the stock market that it would invalidate the very concept of valuation and business/market cycles. It changes everything, creates a magical new paradigm, which (if it came to pass) would truly be a very big deal, making this era truly a 4T in the S&H sense.  But such a Brave New World invalidates history, which includes S&H, so it is a self-contradictory situation. Occam's razor would say the Right wins scenario is wishful thinking.  Yet this is the stated belief of the chief architect of Republican economic thinking.  It is what they (and many here) truly believe.  But then those 19 guys who flew planes into the WTC also believed. Did their fervent belief make their beliefs correct?  As I describe above, the Republicans are our version of Hezbollah, of true believers. (Many on the Left are also true believers--which is why this turning as a 2T feels like a possibility). Many conservatives believe in an imminent Rapture, in what I call "Field of Dreams" economics, in the idea that reality is just a matter of will.  So maybe they can will themselves to victory in 2020 and then the mojo fails and the parties keep trading off every other term.
Reply
#49
(01-21-2018, 08:27 AM)Mikebert Wrote:
(01-18-2018, 03:26 PM)David Horn Wrote: What happens if the stock market rally persists until 2030, and then there is a crash of the market?  Alternately, we get a period with no further growth but no collapse either (this assumes that there is a minimal amount of gambling going on, so maybe not).

This is what I call the Dow 36,000 scenario, after the 1999 book co-written by Kevin Hassett, Trump's top economic advisor. Basically it calls for a continuation of the bull for years after 2000.  Another book called Dow 100,000 came out in 1999 that forecast this value by 2020. In Stock Cycles I developed a model that did a good job of explaining the rising market of the 1990's.  Basically it showed that if the economic expansion continued until 2007 we would see Dow 35,000 and if it went to 2016 we would see Dow 100,000.  As I wrote then (Jan 2000): "but a 17-26 year economic expansion would have to occur for these wondrous results to come to pass."

For today it would be Dow 100K by 2026 and 250K by 2035.  If this happened this will mean a new era has truly dawned and trees really do grow to the sky. Such market rise implies Republicans would win in 2020 and again in 2024.  Trump would become a Reconstructive president and we would date the start of the 4T in 2010, when Republicans began the long recovery from the disaster of the Obama years (recall history is written by the winners). The 4T would come to an end around 2028, when the opposition party wins. The immigration issue would be resolved by implementation of a 1924-like law to restrict non-white immigrants. Harsh treatment of illegals will send many of them back to their countries of origin. Americans who manage to keep good jobs will benefit from huge gains in their 401k which new laws will allow then to tap for current spending like folks did with their homes under Bush. Other Americans will end up living in the American version of favelas edge of trash dumps survivng by picking through garbage like Freegans.

It will have been a real 4T.  In 2000, I wrote that the Dow 36,000 theory was garbage, that the market would not continue to rise to 36K by 2005 or 100K by 2020, but that a secular bear market would begin soon.  Shortly afterward it looked that this was happening.  But in 2002 I did my analysis of market cycles using generation theory, and concluded that the secular bear market would last to 2020 or so. That future is nearly gone now.  For it to happen, a bear market would have to start ths year and the Dow fall to the 6000's around 2020.  If we do stop having recessions and the market rises forever, then the concept of stock market cycles is no longer valid. There will be no crash, the world will have changed, and that change will be the structural change that is the core feature of the 4T.

This scenario is *not* what we call a "failed 4T". This will simply be one in which the Right wins. Although the end of what we had known as business cycles may seem like magic, one could say it was a miracle, the result of divine intervention on the behalf of the Republicans, the new "Party of God" after their destruction of Hezbollah (the old Party of God) in the Iran war.

Another option would be a true failed 4T. The market rises until the end of next year, then starts to drift down in 2020, but no recession begins until 4Q 2020.  Republicans win narrowly in 2020, before the recession gets underway, but lose big in 2022 and 2024. The 2010's business cycle is unusually long, but it does not destroy the idea of business cycles, the recession does eventually happen. The 3T political stalemate continues, and all the energy remains with social movements. Or the recession comes sooner, Democrats win in 2020 and screw the pooch like they did in 2009, and we have Obama II.

In either of these cases the political moment maps out as a 2T, with some 4T overtones, basically something like the Progressive era. The models are up in the air about whether this political moment will end up as a 2T or 4T, either can happen.  What the models forbid is the scenario I described above.  A 4T, according to the models, is associated with a trend change from rising to falling inequality. 

The three models would say "the Right wins" scenario is a 2T.  They would actually call for what you propose, a decline around 2030.  But a rise to 2030 would create such crazy valuations in the stock market that it would invalidate the very concept of valuation and business/market cycles. It changes everything, creates a magical new paradigm, which (if it came to pass) would truly be a very big deal, making this era truly a 4T in the S&H sense.  But such a Brave New World invalidates history, which includes S&H, so it is a self-contradictory situation. Occam's razor would say the Right wins scenario is wishful thinking.  Yet this is the stated belief of the chief architect of Republican economic thinking.  It is what they (and many here) truly believe.  But then those 19 guys who flew planes into the WTC also believed. Did their fervent belief make their beliefs correct?  As I describe above, the Republicans are our version of Hezbollah, of true believers. (Many on the Left are also true believers--which is why this turning as a 2T feels like a possibility). Many conservatives believe in an imminent Rapture, in what I call "Field of Dreams" economics, in the idea that reality is just a matter of will.  So maybe they can will themselves to victory in 2020 and then the mojo fails and the parties keep trading off every other term.

So, in short, we don't have any really good options here.  I can't buy the concept that the business cycle is totally dead, because there has to be something concrete underlying all the enthusiasm.  Yes, the buying and selling continues on Main Street, but the buyers have to be getting near the point of saying "enough".  Wages and salaries haven't been rising enough to propel an endless shopping spree, so business will have to slow at some point.  I just can't see when.

After the corporate spending spree subsides, that may signal the end of this round.  Considering the amount that will be repatriated, that may take a while.  I doubt it will be broadly shared, but it may be enough to get the GOP reelected in 2018.  If so, 2020 is still up for grabs, and the gerrymander may do the rest.  By then, we'll all be tired, and I expect that will be the last major event I'll witness.  So 2020 is still the key, and a stock market crash is still a potential triggering event.  The operative word being 'potential'.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#50
The economic cycle suggests that the economy will slow at the end of the decade, and end of decades are often slow times anyway. Gerrymandering has been overturned in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, probably making 6-8 seats available to Democrats, and Wisconsin's was overturned at the state level. So more may come. Over 30 GOP incumbents have announced retirement too. I'd say a Democratic victory in the House in 2018 is very likely. Presidential victory in 2020 likely depends on the Democrats choosing a candidate that does more than satisfy Democrats, but one who can communicate and connect with voters. Horoscope scores and any good observation that includes this factor indicate that most of the front runners so far don't fill the bill. Maybe Sherrod Brown has a good shot because of his strength in the Rust Belt.

As I pointed out on the other site, 4Ts do not equal economic crashes and declines. The 4T most like our own, in the 1850s and 1860s, were boom times. The crisis as I have always pointed out is our divided country, and the question is whether a united states will survive this 4T. Our 4T will climax in revolution, civil war, and war abroad all at once in the mid-2020s. Progressives should dominate in the 2020s, although the astrological indicators are unclear about which party will rule for how long.

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

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)