It Ain’t Over, Folks

[Dan '82]

http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/it-...ver-folks/

Quote:Judging by the tone of discussions in the mass media and the social media, most people are heartily sick of this “Election from Hell” and can’t wait until it’s over. Well, folks, I have bad news for you (and yes, I know what happens to a bearer of bad news): It Ain’t Over. Whoever gets elected tomorrow, we are guaranteed to see more political dysfunction and social instability both in the short and medium terms.
The chances of impeachment proceedings (to repeat, whoever wins the presidency) in 2017 are very high. The relations between the POTUS and the Congress are likely to deteriorate even more. Proxies for political fragmentation, which I use in Ages of Discord, such as the frequency of filibusters and the percent of judicial nominations who are not confirmed; all will probably continue to spike. Incidentally, when are we going to have a nine-member Supreme Court again?
In the medium run neither of the candidates has a good program that could even start addressing the deep structural causes of our current troubles. As I said many times, this blog is fiercely nonpartisan. I have not endorsed, nor dis-endorsed, either of the candidates. But even their supporters admit that both major candidates are flawed, each in his/her own way. The presidential campaign of 2016 has been relentlessly negative. I don’t even remember any substantive discussion of how the current trends to popular immiseration are going to be reversed. And, of course, nobody is discussing elite overproduction. Well, very few people understand how serious a problem it is.
Yet elite overproduction has a lot to do with why we find ourselves in this Election from Hell. In Ages of Discord I discuss two proxies for current elite overproduction: overproduction of multi-millionaires, and overproduction of politically ambitious holders of advanced degrees, most importantly, law degrees (because a law degree is the best kind of credential to have if you want to become a politician).

Source
As I pointed out in a previous post, Donald Trump is emblematic of the new crop of politically ambitious newly rich, who aim to translate their economic power into political office. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is emblematic of the Law School route to political office. As the number of multimillionaires and law degree holders per population capita exploded in recent decades, we now have an overly large pool of contenders for a fixed number of political offices (there is only one POTUS, only nine high justices, 100 senators, etc.). Structural-demographic theory posits that as competition for these offices becomes intense, so will intraelite fragmentation and conflict.
This is, really, why this election has been so nasty. It’s not just the personalities of Trump or Clinton. As intraelite competition becomes fierce, all methods of getting ahead become fair. Why should we expect that presidential candidates would compete on who proposes a better program to fix social ills? Smearing the opponent works much better.

No-Holds-Barred-Competition
What’s particularly worrying is how this no-holds-barred competition results in the unraveling of the social norms that govern the public discourse and the  political system in this country. Trump has refused to conform to one of the most important norms of democracy: to acquiesce to the election results. But (to be nonpartisan and even-handed in my critique of the two candidates), what was Clinton thinking about when she accepted a $1 million contribution from a foreign government during her tenure as Secretary of State?
Both candidates have been riding rough-shod over the social norms that have governed what is acceptable behavior of a member of the American political class. Such unraveling of social norms is what we see in the run-up to a major political rapture in historical societies that my colleagues and I have studied.

[Mikebert]

See my post on the breaking point thread:

http://generational-theory.com/forum/thr...l#pid11619

[Mikebert]

Some time ago, I think at the old site I posted on several historical cycle comparisons for this election.  One of them was influenced by the Turchin cycle model, and the other used the S&H model.
 
Here’s the S&H (here I am using Marc Lamb’s concept of a 40 year repeating unit)
Reagan = T Roosevelt
Bush I = Taft
Clinton = Wilson
Bush II = Harding/Coolidge
Obama = Hoover/early FDR
Clinton = later FDR

Here’s what you get using the Turchin cycle
Clinton = Cleveland
Bush II = T Roosevelt-Taft
Obama = Wilson
Trump = Harding-Coolidge

The focus of the first is the idea that we be 4T, and so the presidents since Reagan should reflect a 3T transition to a 4T.  The focus of the second is that the current period resembles the crisis phase of the secular cycle.  We have high levels of immigrants that are provoking a backlash from native-born Americans.  Recall that the Republican elected in 1920 promised to return America to normalcy. The one elected in 2016 promises a return to sunnier times of the past. America sharply restricted immigration over 1921-24.  Trump promises to do the same.  Then there was a significant progressive minority fed up with both parties who had flocked to the banner of Socialist Eugene Debs in elections in the teens and 1920. This time there was a popular socialist who has a picture of Debs in his Senate office. The new Republican administration began a program of tax reform involving lowering rates that maintained revenues and got rates down to 24% by 1929. Trump has a plan begin another such process. The Republican administration installed in 1920 was initially popular while the stock market rally that began in 1921 continued. This changed after stocks began to fall.

Now I was aware of how eerily similar these two periods seem. But I discounted it because it pretty much throws out S&H, and Clinton was almost certainly going to win, as predicted by the S&H-based models.  Well, that didn’t happen.

Throwing out S&H allows for new predictions.  Instead of the coming recession being a 1937-38 analog, with resolution of the inequality issue a few years after under president Clinton, it is going to be an analog to 1920-21. With Trump as Harding. (Harding was famously corrupt and had a thing for the ladies too). There is a difference now, as the market is already very overvalued, whereas it was undervalued in 1920. Assume Trump succeeds in restricting immigration and trade (as achieved under Harding to Hoover) before the crash consumes his administration. We may see a telescoping of the entire 1920-1932 period into one term.  How can Congressional Republicans deny him these things if he threatens to hold rallies for their primary opponents in 2018 if they do?
 
If this happens it gets very interesting.

[Marypoza]

(11-11-2016, 09:40 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Some time ago, I think at the old site I posted on several historical cycle comparisons for this election.  One of them was influenced by the Turchin cycle model, and the other used the S&H model.
 
Here’s the S&H (here I am using Marc Lamb’s concept of a 40 year repeating unit)
Reagan = T Roosevelt
Bush I = Taft
Clinton = Wilson
Bush II = Harding/Coolidge
Obama = Hoover/early FDR
Clinton = later FDR

Here’s what you get using the Turchin cycle
Clinton = Cleveland
Bush II = T Roosevelt-Taft
Obama = Wilson
Trump = Harding-Coolidge

The focus of the first is the idea that we be 4T, and so the presidents since Reagan should reflect a 3T transition to a 4T.  The focus of the second is that the current period resembles the crisis phase of the secular cycle.  We have high levels of immigrants that are provoking a backlash from native-born Americans.  Recall that the Republican elected in 1920 promised to return America to normalcy. The one elected in 2016 promises a return to sunnier times of the past. America sharply restricted immigration over 1921-24.  Trump promises to do the same.  Then there was a significant progressive minority fed up with both parties who had flocked to the banner of Socialist Eugene Debs in elections in the teens and 1920. This time there was a popular socialist who has a picture of Debs in his Senate office. The new Republican administration began a program of tax reform involving lowering rates that maintained revenues and got rates down to 24% by 1929. Trump has a plan begin another such process. The Republican administration installed in 1920 was initially popular while the stock market rally that began in 1921 continued. This changed after stocks began to fall.

Now I was aware of how eerily similar these two periods seem. But I discounted it because it pretty much throws out S&H, and Clinton was almost certainly going to win, as predicted by the S&H-based models.  Well, that didn’t happen.

Throwing out S&H allows for new predictions.  Instead of the coming recession being a 1937-38 analog, with resolution of the inequality issue a few years after under president Clinton, it is going to be an analog to 1920-21. With Trump as Harding. (Harding was famously corrupt and had a thing for the ladies too). There is a difference now, as the market is already very overvalued, whereas it was undervalued in 1920. Assume Trump succeeds in restricting immigration and trade (as achieved under Harding to Hoover) before the crash consumes his administration. We may see a telescoping of the entire 1920-1932 period into one term.  How can Congressional Republicans deny him these things if he threatens to hold rallies for their primary opponents in 2018 if they do?
 
If this happens it gets very interesting.

-- interesting indeed, we'll have to see how this rolls. But you have explained why the Hillary candidacy was "off",  for lack of a better word. In the 1990s we had the Clinton co-presidency, 80 yrs before that it was Woodrow & Edith Wilson. Hillary is not Eleanor Roosevelt, she's Edith Wilson. Had the DNC not rigged their primary & manipulated the repug primaries (per their own emails via wikileaks) had they not sabotaged Bernie's campaign & instead ran him in the general, we would have our FDR. lnstead we got the Donald

This changes everthing

[disasterzone]

(11-11-2016, 09:58 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 09:40 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Some time ago, I think at the old site I posted on several historical cycle comparisons for this election.  One of them was influenced by the Turchin cycle model, and the other used the S&H model.
 
Here’s the S&H (here I am using Marc Lamb’s concept of a 40 year repeating unit)
Reagan = T Roosevelt
Bush I = Taft
Clinton = Wilson
Bush II = Harding/Coolidge
Obama = Hoover/early FDR
Clinton = later FDR

Here’s what you get using the Turchin cycle
Clinton = Cleveland
Bush II = T Roosevelt-Taft
Obama = Wilson
Trump = Harding-Coolidge

The focus of the first is the idea that we be 4T, and so the presidents since Reagan should reflect a 3T transition to a 4T.  The focus of the second is that the current period resembles the crisis phase of the secular cycle.  We have high levels of immigrants that are provoking a backlash from native-born Americans.  Recall that the Republican elected in 1920 promised to return America to normalcy. The one elected in 2016 promises a return to sunnier times of the past. America sharply restricted immigration over 1921-24.  Trump promises to do the same.  Then there was a significant progressive minority fed up with both parties who had flocked to the banner of Socialist Eugene Debs in elections in the teens and 1920. This time there was a popular socialist who has a picture of Debs in his Senate office. The new Republican administration began a program of tax reform involving lowering rates that maintained revenues and got rates down to 24% by 1929. Trump has a plan begin another such process. The Republican administration installed in 1920 was initially popular while the stock market rally that began in 1921 continued. This changed after stocks began to fall.

Now I was aware of how eerily similar these two periods seem. But I discounted it because it pretty much throws out S&H, and Clinton was almost certainly going to win, as predicted by the S&H-based models.  Well, that didn’t happen.

Throwing out S&H allows for new predictions.  Instead of the coming recession being a 1937-38 analog, with resolution of the inequality issue a few years after under president Clinton, it is going to be an analog to 1920-21. With Trump as Harding. (Harding was famously corrupt and had a thing for the ladies too). There is a difference now, as the market is already very overvalued, whereas it was undervalued in 1920. Assume Trump succeeds in restricting immigration and trade (as achieved under Harding to Hoover) before the crash consumes his administration. We may see a telescoping of the entire 1920-1932 period into one term.  How can Congressional Republicans deny him these things if he threatens to hold rallies for their primary opponents in 2018 if they do?
 
If this happens it gets very interesting.

-- interesting indeed, we'll have to see how this rolls. But you have explained why the Hillary candidacy was "off",  for lack of a better word. In the 1990s we had the Clinton co-presidency, 80 yrs before that it was Woodrow & Edith Wilson. Hillary is not Eleanor Roosevelt, she's Edith Wilson. Had the DNC not rigged their primary & manipulated the repug primaries (per their own emails via wikileaks) had they not sabotaged Bernie's campaign & instead ran him in the general, we would have our FDR. lnstead we got the Donald

This changes everthing

(11-11-2016, 03:09 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I don't think Trump can be a grey champion because I don't think there are any.  Trumps election more or less puts the final nail in the coffin from the generation theory.  The theory holds that the Awakening creates raises issue or creates belief systems that influence the prophet generation coming of age, who then later put these ideals into practice later in life during a 4T when they are known as grey champions.  S&H call the 2T the New Consciousness, which certainly seems a reference to the late sixties and early 1970's.  Both candidates were age 22 in 1968-69, right in the middle of this.  So this fits age-wise.  But DST theory and empirical data shows that the core issue resolved in 4T is problems stemming from elite proliferation caused by high economic inequality.

How can Trump deal with this?  Many ways have been used in the past.  

[1A] in early 1066 England had a Saxon king and a Saxon elite. According to Domesday, by 1086 England had a Norman king and a Norman elite and population was rising after centuries of stagnation.
[1B] Fifty years earlier the Danes had conquered England too, but they left the Saxon elites in place.  Guess which invasion was the 4T?

[2A] After Henry VI went insane the country fell apart and a 30 year civil war began, on which the popular series Game of Thrones is based. At the end of the conflict the entire ruling House had been wiped out leaving one man in power, who proceeded to craft a legislative agenda to prevent future challenges to the state.  Population growth resumed and prosperity ensued.
[2B] Half a century earlier civil war had also wracked the nation, but had been put down by the able and charismatic son of the aging king, who later went on to win renown in external conquests only to suffer an untimely death leaving an infant son on the throne.  Which civil war was the 4T?

[3A] A civil war led to the execution of Charles I and the abolition of the monarchy and establishment of a republic, than soon devolved into a military dictatorship. Upon the dictator's death he was succeeded by his son, but he was unable to gain the support of the elite and the monarch was restored.
[3B]A generation later a foreign invader with substantial domestic support displaced the monarch replacing it with a new one that shared power with Parliament. A flurry of reforms created an environment conducive to economic growth, which provided many new opportunities for elites. After decades of stagnation, population growth resumed as the economy improved. Which event was the 4T?

[4A]An isolated portion of the English state became increasingly frustrated with limits on territorial expansion, monetary policy, and regulation of commerce, and rebelled.  The won and expelled pro-English elites.  After a brief chaotic period they implemented a flurry of reforms created an environment conducive to economic growth, which provided many new opportunities for elites.
[4B]A generation later two rival factions of the successful revolutionaries settled differences in governance in a peaceful fashion preserving the status of all involved. Which event was the 4T?

In each of these there is one choice where the problem of elite numbers was not addressed, either through reduction in numbers or through expansion of opportunities and one where the status quo was maintained.  The former are the 4Ts.  The answers above are 1A, 2A (Wars if the Roses), 3B (Glorious Revolution), 4A (American Revolution.

As we moved into the industrial age, the problem of elite proliferation was addresses by confiscating the property of elites so as to reduce their status, making their lower strata blend into the middle classes or gentry. For example the Civil War 4T stripped Southern elites of three fifths of their wealth by emancipation, converting an American aristocracy into a mere gentry.

The Depression and WW II 4T used high taxes on top elites, legalization of labor actions and wartime "command economy" policies to reduce elite incomes substantially, converting their lower tier members into mere upper middle class.

Something along these lines must happen during this turning for it to be a 4T.  If it doesn't happen, then it is not a 4T. Can anyone make a case for how elite reduction along the lines of what I described above could happen in today's world (I don't think Trump is going to emulate William the Conqueror).

Maybe Donald is what will usher us into the 1T. Oddly enough I notice a lot of 1T attitudes now.

[Marypoza]

(11-11-2016, 10:13 PM)disasterzone Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 09:58 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 09:40 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Some time ago, I think at the old site I posted on several historical cycle comparisons for this election.  One of them was influenced by the Turchin cycle model, and the other used the S&H model.
 
Here’s the S&H (here I am using Marc Lamb’s concept of a 40 year repeating unit)
Reagan = T Roosevelt
Bush I = Taft
Clinton = Wilson
Bush II = Harding/Coolidge
Obama = Hoover/early FDR
Clinton = later FDR

Here’s what you get using the Turchin cycle
Clinton = Cleveland
Bush II = T Roosevelt-Taft
Obama = Wilson
Trump = Harding-Coolidge

The focus of the first is the idea that we be 4T, and so the presidents since Reagan should reflect a 3T transition to a 4T.  The focus of the second is that the current period resembles the crisis phase of the secular cycle.  We have high levels of immigrants that are provoking a backlash from native-born Americans.  Recall that the Republican elected in 1920 promised to return America to normalcy. The one elected in 2016 promises a return to sunnier times of the past. America sharply restricted immigration over 1921-24.  Trump promises to do the same.  Then there was a significant progressive minority fed up with both parties who had flocked to the banner of Socialist Eugene Debs in elections in the teens and 1920. This time there was a popular socialist who has a picture of Debs in his Senate office. The new Republican administration began a program of tax reform involving lowering rates that maintained revenues and got rates down to 24% by 1929. Trump has a plan begin another such process. The Republican administration installed in 1920 was initially popular while the stock market rally that began in 1921 continued. This changed after stocks began to fall.

Now I was aware of how eerily similar these two periods seem. But I discounted it because it pretty much throws out S&H, and Clinton was almost certainly going to win, as predicted by the S&H-based models.  Well, that didn’t happen.

Throwing out S&H allows for new predictions.  Instead of the coming recession being a 1937-38 analog, with resolution of the inequality issue a few years after under president Clinton, it is going to be an analog to 1920-21. With Trump as Harding. (Harding was famously corrupt and had a thing for the ladies too). There is a difference now, as the market is already very overvalued, whereas it was undervalued in 1920. Assume Trump succeeds in restricting immigration and trade (as achieved under Harding to Hoover) before the crash consumes his administration. We may see a telescoping of the entire 1920-1932 period into one term.  How can Congressional Republicans deny him these things if he threatens to hold rallies for their primary opponents in 2018 if they do?
 
If this happens it gets very interesting.

-- interesting indeed, we'll have to see how this rolls. But you have explained why the Hillary candidacy was "off",  for lack of a better word. In the 1990s we had the Clinton co-presidency, 80 yrs before that it was Woodrow & Edith Wilson. Hillary is not Eleanor Roosevelt, she's Edith Wilson. Had the DNC not rigged their primary & manipulated the repug primaries (per their own emails via wikileaks) had they not sabotaged Bernie's campaign & instead ran him in the general, we would have our FDR. lnstead we got the Donald

This changes everthing

(11-11-2016, 03:09 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I don't think Trump can be a grey champion because I don't think there are any.  Trumps election more or less puts the final nail in the coffin from the generation theory.  The theory holds that the Awakening creates raises issue or creates belief systems that influence the prophet generation coming of age, who then later put these ideals into practice later in life during a 4T when they are known as grey champions.  S&H call the 2T the New Consciousness, which certainly seems a reference to the late sixties and early 1970's.  Both candidates were age 22 in 1968-69, right in the middle of this.  So this fits age-wise.  But DST theory and empirical data shows that the core issue resolved in 4T is problems stemming from elite proliferation caused by high economic inequality.

How can Trump deal with this?  Many ways have been used in the past.  

[1A] in early 1066 England had a Saxon king and a Saxon elite. According to Domesday, by 1086 England had a Norman king and a Norman elite and population was rising after centuries of stagnation.
[1B] Fifty years earlier the Danes had conquered England too, but they left the Saxon elites in place.  Guess which invasion was the 4T?

[2A] After Henry VI went insane the country fell apart and a 30 year civil war began, on which the popular series Game of Thrones is based. At the end of the conflict the entire ruling House had been wiped out leaving one man in power, who proceeded to craft a legislative agenda to prevent future challenges to the state.  Population growth resumed and prosperity ensued.
[2B] Half a century earlier civil war had also wracked the nation, but had been put down by the able and charismatic son of the aging king, who later went on to win renown in external conquests only to suffer an untimely death leaving an infant son on the throne.  Which civil war was the 4T?

[3A] A civil war led to the execution of Charles I and the abolition of the monarchy and establishment of a republic, than soon devolved into a military dictatorship. Upon the dictator's death he was succeeded by his son, but he was unable to gain the support of the elite and the monarch was restored.
[3B]A generation later a foreign invader with substantial domestic support displaced the monarch replacing it with a new one that shared power with Parliament. A flurry of reforms created an environment conducive to economic growth, which provided many new opportunities for elites. After decades of stagnation, population growth resumed as the economy improved. Which event was the 4T?

[4A]An isolated portion of the English state became increasingly frustrated with limits on territorial expansion, monetary policy, and regulation of commerce, and rebelled.  The won and expelled pro-English elites.  After a brief chaotic period they implemented a flurry of reforms created an environment conducive to economic growth, which provided many new opportunities for elites.
[4B]A generation later two rival factions of the successful revolutionaries settled differences in governance in a peaceful fashion preserving the status of all involved. Which event was the 4T?

In each of these there is one choice where the problem of elite numbers was not addressed, either through reduction in numbers or through expansion of opportunities and one where the status quo was maintained.  The former are the 4Ts.  The answers above are 1A, 2A (Wars if the Roses), 3B (Glorious Revolution), 4A (American Revolution.

As we moved into the industrial age, the problem of elite proliferation was addresses by confiscating the property of elites so as to reduce their status, making their lower strata blend into the middle classes or gentry. For example the Civil War 4T stripped Southern elites of three fifths of their wealth by emancipation, converting an American aristocracy into a mere gentry.

The Depression and WW II 4T used high taxes on top elites, legalization of labor actions and wartime "command economy" policies to reduce elite incomes substantially, converting their lower tier members into mere upper middle class.

Something along these lines must happen during this turning for it to be a 4T.  If it doesn't happen, then it is not a 4T. Can anyone make a case for how elite reduction along the lines of what I described above could happen in today's world (I don't think Trump is going to emulate William the Conqueror).

Maybe Donald is what will usher us into the 1T. Oddly enough I notice a lot of 1T attitudes now.

-- maybe, like l said earlier, we'll have to see how this rolls.

[disasterzone]

(11-11-2016, 10:50 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- maybe, like l said earlier, we'll have to see how this rolls.

Were 1T attitudes common in 1937 or 1938?
If our 4T started in 08, we're in the equivalent of 1937, about to be 1938.

[Marypoza]

(11-11-2016, 11:32 PM)disasterzone Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 10:50 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- maybe, like l said earlier, we'll have to see how this rolls.

Were 1T attitudes common in 1937 or 1938?
If our 4T started in 08, we're in the equivalent of 1937, about to be 1938.

-- l don't go back that far so l couldn't say,  but I believe there was a recession in the middle of the Depression around that time. Economists claim another recession is due to hit in a couple yrs. otoh, the TPP is now DEAD ( boo-yeah!) & the Donald wants to reintroduce  tariffs (which the 1930 Congress enacted in 1930) & possibly bring back Glass-Steagle so that may save jobs & ward off a recession.That may, in turn,  morph into a 1T, to be honest l dunno

Another thing- starting in 1936 Roosevelt had these landslide victories so the ppl were with him. The Donald just eked out an electoral victory while the hildabitch "won" the popular vote, which may or may not have been rigged (we'll have to see if wikileaks releases any more emails) so ppl are divided. Roosevelt won the popular vote in 1932, but that election was tighter than the later ones. Hoover only served the 1 term, O'Hoover served 2, delaying economic recovery by 4 yrs (a jobless recovery is not a true revovery) 8yrs really, since those tariffs should of been enacted in 2009. Instead Wall St got bailed out & Main St was left to wallow in crappy Mcjobs & underwater mortgages. I suppose the Donald could fill the FDR role- Bernie fit it much better however- we shall have to see

[Galen]

(11-12-2016, 07:29 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 11:32 PM)disasterzone Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 10:50 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- maybe, like l said earlier, we'll have to see how this rolls.

Were 1T attitudes common in 1937 or 1938?
If our 4T started in 08, we're in the equivalent of 1937, about to be 1938.

-- l don't go back that far so l couldn't say,  but I believe there was a recession in the middle of the Depression around that time. Economists claim another recession is due to hit in a couple yrs. otoh, the TPP is now DEAD ( boo-yeah!) & the Donald wants to reintroduce  tariffs (which the 1930 Congress enacted in 1930) so that may save jobs & ward off a recession.That may, in turn,  morph into a 1T, to be honest l dunno

I suggest that you review the effects of the Smoot-Hawley tariff.  As bad as TPP is it still seems unwise to be so optimistic.  I would also recommend reviewing the Austrian School of Economics theory of the Business Cycle.  It will give you a better handle on where the US is than the Keynesian or Monetary School of Economics will.

[Mikebert]

(11-12-2016, 07:41 AM)Galen Wrote: I suggest that you review the effects of the Smoot-Hawley tariff.  As bad as TPP is it still seems unwise to be so optimistic.  I would also recommend reviewing the Austrian School of Economics theory of the Business Cycle.  It will give you a better handle on where the US is than the Keynesian or Monetary School of Economics will.

Secretary Mellon recommended Austrian* policy in 1929 (which was not followed):

Two schools of thought quickly developed within our administration discussions. First was the "leave it alone liquidationists" headed by Secretary of the Treasury Mellon, who felt that government must keep its hands off and let the slump liquidate itself. Mr. Mellon had only one formula: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate." He insisted that, when the people get an inflation brainstorm, the only way to get it out of their blood is to let it collapse. He held that even a panic was not altogether a bad thing. He said: "It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people." (Hoover 1952:30)

But Mellon was secretary in 1921, too, so it stands to reason that the federal government followed Austrian policy over 1921-22.  The Fed hiked rates by 300 basis point then so I know they did not pursue any sort of monetary stimulus. So if the historical analogy holds, Republicans will at least consider Austrian* policy (sometimes called austerity) for the next recession. If they have balls they will try it, we'll get to see if it delivers prosperity, as Austrians claim.

Here's the deal.  Economically conservative Republicans accept various aspects of classical economics in the neoclassical school that has arisen more recently.  Nobody has tried a liquidationist approach (full austerity) to a recession since 1921 (assuming that is what was done then).  Most other economists believe such a policy makes recessions worse or even lead to depression. I have no clue what Trump thinks, if anything, on this issue.

*A brand of classical economics pursued by Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and several of his students (F. A. Hayek is the most famous) after most every other economist had moved on to Keynesian or monetarist approaches.

Hoover, Herbert. 1952. The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover, Volume 3: The Great Depression 1929-1941. MacMillan Company, New York. https://hoover.archives.gov/research/ebooks/B1V3_Full.pdf

[Mikebert]

(11-11-2016, 10:13 PM)disasterzone Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 09:58 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 09:40 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Some time ago, I think at the old site I posted on several historical cycle comparisons for this election.  One of them was influenced by the Turchin cycle model, and the other used the S&H model.
 
Here’s the S&H (here I am using Marc Lamb’s concept of a 40 year repeating unit)
Reagan = T Roosevelt
Bush I = Taft
Clinton = Wilson
Bush II = Harding/Coolidge
Obama = Hoover/early FDR
Clinton = later FDR

Here’s what you get using the Turchin cycle
Clinton = Cleveland
Bush II = T Roosevelt-Taft
Obama = Wilson
Trump = Harding-Coolidge

The focus of the first is the idea that we be 4T, and so the presidents since Reagan should reflect a 3T transition to a 4T.  The focus of the second is that the current period resembles the crisis phase of the secular cycle.  We have high levels of immigrants that are provoking a backlash from native-born Americans.  Recall that the Republican elected in 1920 promised to return America to normalcy. The one elected in 2016 promises a return to sunnier times of the past. America sharply restricted immigration over 1921-24.  Trump promises to do the same.  Then there was a significant progressive minority fed up with both parties who had flocked to the banner of Socialist Eugene Debs in elections in the teens and 1920. This time there was a popular socialist who has a picture of Debs in his Senate office. The new Republican administration began a program of tax reform involving lowering rates that maintained revenues and got rates down to 24% by 1929. Trump has a plan begin another such process. The Republican administration installed in 1920 was initially popular while the stock market rally that began in 1921 continued. This changed after stocks began to fall.

Now I was aware of how eerily similar these two periods seem. But I discounted it because it pretty much throws out S&H, and Clinton was almost certainly going to win, as predicted by the S&H-based models.  Well, that didn’t happen.

Throwing out S&H allows for new predictions.  Instead of the coming recession being a 1937-38 analog, with resolution of the inequality issue a few years after under president Clinton, it is going to be an analog to 1920-21. With Trump as Harding. (Harding was famously corrupt and had a thing for the ladies too). There is a difference now, as the market is already very overvalued, whereas it was undervalued in 1920. Assume Trump succeeds in restricting immigration and trade (as achieved under Harding to Hoover) before the crash consumes his administration. We may see a telescoping of the entire 1920-1932 period into one term.  How can Congressional Republicans deny him these things if he threatens to hold rallies for their primary opponents in 2018 if they do?
 
If this happens it gets very interesting.

-- interesting indeed, we'll have to see how this rolls. But you have explained why the Hillary candidacy was "off",  for lack of a better word. In the 1990s we had the Clinton co-presidency, 80 yrs before that it was Woodrow & Edith Wilson. Hillary is not Eleanor Roosevelt, she's Edith Wilson. Had the DNC not rigged their primary & manipulated the repug primaries (per their own emails via wikileaks) had they not sabotaged Bernie's campaign & instead ran him in the general, we would have our FDR. lnstead we got the Donald

This changes everthing

(11-11-2016, 03:09 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I don't think Trump can be a grey champion because I don't think there are any.  Trumps election more or less puts the final nail in the coffin from the generation theory.  The theory holds that the Awakening creates raises issue or creates belief systems that influence the prophet generation coming of age, who then later put these ideals into practice later in life during a 4T when they are known as grey champions.  S&H call the 2T the New Consciousness, which certainly seems a reference to the late sixties and early 1970's.  Both candidates were age 22 in 1968-69, right in the middle of this.  So this fits age-wise.  But DST theory and empirical data shows that the core issue resolved in 4T is problems stemming from elite proliferation caused by high economic inequality.

How can Trump deal with this?  Many ways have been used in the past.  

[1A] in early 1066 England had a Saxon king and a Saxon elite. According to Domesday, by 1086 England had a Norman king and a Norman elite and population was rising after centuries of stagnation.
[1B] Fifty years earlier the Danes had conquered England too, but they left the Saxon elites in place.  Guess which invasion was the 4T?

[2A] After Henry VI went insane the country fell apart and a 30 year civil war began, on which the popular series Game of Thrones is based. At the end of the conflict the entire ruling House had been wiped out leaving one man in power, who proceeded to craft a legislative agenda to prevent future challenges to the state.  Population growth resumed and prosperity ensued.
[2B] Half a century earlier civil war had also wracked the nation, but had been put down by the able and charismatic son of the aging king, who later went on to win renown in external conquests only to suffer an untimely death leaving an infant son on the throne.  Which civil war was the 4T?

[3A] A civil war led to the execution of Charles I and the abolition of the monarchy and establishment of a republic, than soon devolved into a military dictatorship. Upon the dictator's death he was succeeded by his son, but he was unable to gain the support of the elite and the monarch was restored.
[3B]A generation later a foreign invader with substantial domestic support displaced the monarch replacing it with a new one that shared power with Parliament. A flurry of reforms created an environment conducive to economic growth, which provided many new opportunities for elites. After decades of stagnation, population growth resumed as the economy improved. Which event was the 4T?

[4A]An isolated portion of the English state became increasingly frustrated with limits on territorial expansion, monetary policy, and regulation of commerce, and rebelled.  The won and expelled pro-English elites.  After a brief chaotic period they implemented a flurry of reforms created an environment conducive to economic growth, which provided many new opportunities for elites.
[4B]A generation later two rival factions of the successful revolutionaries settled differences in governance in a peaceful fashion preserving the status of all involved. Which event was the 4T?

In each of these there is one choice where the problem of elite numbers was not addressed, either through reduction in numbers or through expansion of opportunities and one where the status quo was maintained.  The former are the 4Ts.  The answers above are 1A, 2A (Wars if the Roses), 3B (Glorious Revolution), 4A (American Revolution.

As we moved into the industrial age, the problem of elite proliferation was addresses by confiscating the property of elites so as to reduce their status, making their lower strata blend into the middle classes or gentry. For example the Civil War 4T stripped Southern elites of three fifths of their wealth by emancipation, converting an American aristocracy into a mere gentry.

The Depression and WW II 4T used high taxes on top elites, legalization of labor actions and wartime "command economy" policies to reduce elite incomes substantially, converting their lower tier members into mere upper middle class.

Something along these lines must happen during this turning for it to be a 4T.  If it doesn't happen, then it is not a 4T. Can anyone make a case for how elite reduction along the lines of what I described above could happen in today's world (I don't think Trump is going to emulate William the Conqueror).

Maybe Donald is what will usher us into the 1T. Oddly enough I notice a lot of 1T attitudes now.

The 4T cannot end until the problem of excess elites is solved. This problem is why people and angry and until it is resolved, they will just get angrier at whoever is in control--symbolized by which party has the presidency. It has been going steadily downhill. Bush inherited the surplus and a nation at peace. Trump will inherit a nation at war and a deficit. Trump is dealt a worse hand than Bush got. Like Bush, Trump has only Republican policy options to choose from because he has a Republican Congress.  He can pass a lot of stuff, just like Bush could but it all has to come from the same basket of Republican 3T policies.   Republicans often hold power in 3Ts and so they tend to have a collection of 3T policies.  Republic experience with 4T success dates from the Civil War, but they were a Blue party, concentrated in the NE.  Updated versions of these policies are not suitable for a Red party. 

Do you think Bush wanted the Afghan & Iraq wars to turn out like they did or the economy to crash? All of these probably could have been avoided if the right policies had been pursued.  But these policies are not in the basket, so they cannot be used.  Trump has the same basket as Bush, but starting out from a worse position. So no, the 4T is not going to end anytime soon.

[Warren Dew]

(11-12-2016, 10:07 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 07:41 AM)Galen Wrote: I suggest that you review the effects of the Smoot-Hawley tariff.  As bad as TPP is it still seems unwise to be so optimistic.  I would also recommend reviewing the Austrian School of Economics theory of the Business Cycle.  It will give you a better handle on where the US is than the Keynesian or Monetary School of Economics will.

Secretary Mellon recommended Austrian* policy in 1929 (which was not followed):

Two schools of thought quickly developed within our administration discussions. First was the "leave it alone liquidationists" headed by Secretary of the Treasury Mellon, who felt that government must keep its hands off and let the slump liquidate itself. Mr. Mellon had only one formula: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate." He insisted that, when the people get an inflation brainstorm, the only way to get it out of their blood is to let it collapse. He held that even a panic was not altogether a bad thing. He said: "It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people." (Hoover 1952:30)

But Mellon was secretary in 1921, too, so it stands to reason that the federal government followed Austrian policy over 1921-22.  The Fed hiked rates by 300 basis point then so I know they did not pursue any sort of monetary stimulus. So if the historical analogy holds, Republicans will at least consider Austrian* policy (sometimes called austerity) for the next recession. If they have balls they will try it, we'll get to see if it delivers prosperity, as Austrians claim.

Here's the deal.  Economically conservative Republicans accept various aspects of classical economics in the neoclassical school that has arisen more recently.  Nobody has tried a liquidationist approach (full austerity) to a recession since 1921 (assuming that is what was done then).  Most other economists believe such a policy makes recessions worse or even lead to depression. I have no clue what Trump thinks, if anything, on this issue.

*A brand of classical economics pursued by Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and several of his students (F. A. Hayek is the most famous) after most every other economist had moved on to Keynesian or monetarist approaches.

Hoover, Herbert. 1952. The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover, Volume 3: The Great Depression 1929-1941. MacMillan Company, New York. https://hoover.archives.gov/research/ebooks/B1V3_Full.pdf

There is a difference between the Austrian approach and austerity.  The Austrian approach is laissez faire - hands off.  Austerity involves action on the part of the government:  raising taxes, reducing spending.  The Austrian approach does not.

The Austrian approach worked in 1921 and not using it caused a failure in 1929.

[Mikebert]

(11-12-2016, 02:33 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 10:07 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 07:41 AM)Galen Wrote: I suggest that you review the effects of the Smoot-Hawley tariff.  As bad as TPP is it still seems unwise to be so optimistic.  I would also recommend reviewing the Austrian School of Economics theory of the Business Cycle.  It will give you a better handle on where the US is than the Keynesian or Monetary School of Economics will.

Secretary Mellon recommended Austrian* policy in 1929 (which was not followed):

Two schools of thought quickly developed within our administration discussions. First was the "leave it alone liquidationists" headed by Secretary of the Treasury Mellon, who felt that government must keep its hands off and let the slump liquidate itself. Mr. Mellon had only one formula: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate." He insisted that, when the people get an inflation brainstorm, the only way to get it out of their blood is to let it collapse. He held that even a panic was not altogether a bad thing. He said: "It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people." (Hoover 1952:30)

But Mellon was secretary in 1921, too, so it stands to reason that the federal government followed Austrian policy over 1921-22.  The Fed hiked rates by 300 basis point then so I know they did not pursue any sort of monetary stimulus. So if the historical analogy holds, Republicans will at least consider Austrian* policy (sometimes called austerity) for the next recession. If they have balls they will try it, we'll get to see if it delivers prosperity, as Austrians claim.

Here's the deal.  Economically conservative Republicans accept various aspects of classical economics in the neoclassical school that has arisen more recently.  Nobody has tried a liquidationist approach (full austerity) to a recession since 1921 (assuming that is what was done then).  Most other economists believe such a policy makes recessions worse or even lead to depression. I have no clue what Trump thinks, if anything, on this issue.

*A brand of classical economics pursued by Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and several of his students (F. A. Hayek is the most famous) after most every other economist had moved on to Keynesian or monetarist approaches.

Hoover, Herbert. 1952. The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover, Volume 3: The Great Depression 1929-1941. MacMillan Company, New York. https://hoover.archives.gov/research/ebooks/B1V3_Full.pdf

There is a difference between the Austrian approach and austerity.  The Austrian approach is laissez faire - hands off.  Austerity involves action on the part of the government:  raising taxes, reducing spending.  The Austrian approach does not.

The Austrian approach worked in 1921 and not using it caused a failure in 1929.

To employ laissez faire one still requires price stability.  To get back on gold after WW I required austerity.  Mellon employed a rather sophisticated tax policy to produce the surpluses needed to bring the price level back to the pre-war levels. But other than this effort there was no effort to prevent liquidation, which is consistent with a description as laissez faire.

[Eric the Green]

(11-12-2016, 10:25 AM)Mikebert Wrote: The 4T cannot end until the problem of excess elites is solved. This problem is why people and angry and until it is resolved, they will just get angrier at whoever is in control--symbolized by which party has the presidency. It has been going steadily downhill. Bush inherited the surplus and a nation at peace. Trump will inherit a nation at war and a deficit. Trump is dealt a worse hand than Bush got. Like Bush, Trump has only Republican policy options to choose from because he has a Republican Congress.  He can pass a lot of stuff, just like Bush could but it all has to come from the same basket of Republican 3T policies.   Republicans often hold power in 3Ts and so they tend to have a collection of 3T policies.  Republican experience with 4T success dates from the Civil War, but they were a Blue party, concentrated in the NE.  Updated versions of these policies are not suitable for a Red party. 

Bush could not get much of the Republican agenda passed, because the filibuster was still in effect and Democrats had cajones. Now the Republicans are much more ruthless and ambitious, and will probably abolish the filibuster. Democrats probably have no more cajones left, and may be powerless anyway. We are looking at total banana republic status within a few years.

Quote:Do you think Bush wanted the Afghan & Iraq wars to turn out like they did or the economy to crash? All of these probably could have been avoided if the right policies had been pursued.  But these policies are not in the basket, so they cannot be used.  Trump has the same basket as Bush, but starting out from a worse position. So no, the 4T is not going to end anytime soon.

No, it's not going to end soon, and the 1T may be just acceptance of the new banana republic USA, and conformity to it. I don't see any future for the USA under this scenario.

[Marypoza]

(11-12-2016, 07:41 AM)Galen Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 07:29 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 11:32 PM)disasterzone Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 10:50 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- maybe, like l said earlier, we'll have to see how this rolls.

Were 1T attitudes common in 1937 or 1938?
If our 4T started in 08, we're in the equivalent of 1937, about to be 1938.

-- l don't go back that far so l couldn't say,  but I believe there was a recession in the middle of the Depression around that time. Economists claim another recession is due to hit in a couple yrs. otoh, the TPP is now DEAD ( boo-yeah!) & the Donald wants to reintroduce  tariffs (which the 1930 Congress enacted in 1930) so that may save jobs & ward off a recession.That may, in turn,  morph into a 1T, to be honest l dunno

I suggest that you review the effects of the Smoot-Hawley tariff.  As bad as TPP is it still seems unwise to be so optimistic.  I would also recommend reviewing the Austrian School of Economics theory of the Business Cycle.  It will give you a better handle on where the US is than the Keynesian or Monetary School of Economics will.

-- ok maybe Smoot Hawley was a little over the top.  What about something less extreme, a moderate tariff?

[Eric the Green]

You are indeed proving that your vote for Stein was a vote for Trump, Marypoza.

I'm glad I didn't vote for Trump/Stein.

[Warren Dew]

(11-12-2016, 02:51 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 02:33 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 10:07 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 07:41 AM)Galen Wrote: I suggest that you review the effects of the Smoot-Hawley tariff.  As bad as TPP is it still seems unwise to be so optimistic.  I would also recommend reviewing the Austrian School of Economics theory of the Business Cycle.  It will give you a better handle on where the US is than the Keynesian or Monetary School of Economics will.

Secretary Mellon recommended Austrian* policy in 1929 (which was not followed):

Two schools of thought quickly developed within our administration discussions. First was the "leave it alone liquidationists" headed by Secretary of the Treasury Mellon, who felt that government must keep its hands off and let the slump liquidate itself. Mr. Mellon had only one formula: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate." He insisted that, when the people get an inflation brainstorm, the only way to get it out of their blood is to let it collapse. He held that even a panic was not altogether a bad thing. He said: "It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people." (Hoover 1952:30)

But Mellon was secretary in 1921, too, so it stands to reason that the federal government followed Austrian policy over 1921-22.  The Fed hiked rates by 300 basis point then so I know they did not pursue any sort of monetary stimulus. So if the historical analogy holds, Republicans will at least consider Austrian* policy (sometimes called austerity) for the next recession. If they have balls they will try it, we'll get to see if it delivers prosperity, as Austrians claim.

Here's the deal.  Economically conservative Republicans accept various aspects of classical economics in the neoclassical school that has arisen more recently.  Nobody has tried a liquidationist approach (full austerity) to a recession since 1921 (assuming that is what was done then).  Most other economists believe such a policy makes recessions worse or even lead to depression. I have no clue what Trump thinks, if anything, on this issue.

*A brand of classical economics pursued by Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and several of his students (F. A. Hayek is the most famous) after most every other economist had moved on to Keynesian or monetarist approaches.

Hoover, Herbert. 1952. The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover, Volume 3: The Great Depression 1929-1941. MacMillan Company, New York. https://hoover.archives.gov/research/ebooks/B1V3_Full.pdf

There is a difference between the Austrian approach and austerity.  The Austrian approach is laissez faire - hands off.  Austerity involves action on the part of the government:  raising taxes, reducing spending.  The Austrian approach does not.

The Austrian approach worked in 1921 and not using it caused a failure in 1929.

To employ laissez faire one still requires price stability.  To get back on gold after WW I required austerity.  Mellon employed a rather sophisticated tax policy to produce the surpluses needed to bring the price level back to the pre-war levels. But other than this effort there was no effort to prevent liquidation, which is consistent with a description as laissez faire.

You mean the "sophisticated tax policy" of cutting income tax rates?  I don't think that's usually thought of as part of "austerity", even when the tax rate cuts do result in an increase in tax revenues.

[Warren Dew]

(11-12-2016, 07:29 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 11:32 PM)disasterzone Wrote:

(11-11-2016, 10:50 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- maybe, like l said earlier, we'll have to see how this rolls.

Were 1T attitudes common in 1937 or 1938?
If our 4T started in 08, we're in the equivalent of 1937, about to be 1938.

-- l don't go back that far so l couldn't say,  but I believe there was a recession in the middle of the Depression around that time. Economists claim another recession is due to hit in a couple yrs. otoh, the TPP is now DEAD ( boo-yeah!) & the Donald wants to reintroduce  tariffs (which the 1930 Congress enacted in 1930) & possibly bring back Glass-Steagle so that may save jobs & ward off a recession.That may, in turn,  morph into a 1T, to be honest l dunno

Yes, 1937 was the second dip.

Agreed that the TPP, which had all sorts of baggage and was not really a free trade deal, is better off dead.  Glass-Steagall might be good to bring back.

Tariffs, not so much.  The truth is, loss of jobs was less due to offshoring than it was to automation.  Those jobs are not coming back. Tariffs would just deprive the working class consumer of the few luxuries she can presently afford.

The jobs that could come back to working class citizens are those that are the upper end of what's presently being done by illegal immigrants - slaughterhouse jobs, for example.  Half a generational cycle ago, those jobs paid wages on which one could raise a family, but the wages for them have dropped by half due to an influx of labor that is less mobile due to lack of legal work credentials and thus can be hired at below market rates.

Increases in the ratio of wages to return on capital may be insufficient in itself to bring around the first turning, though.  Empirically, a war is required.

[Eric the Green]

Marypoza, Paul Ryan is in charge of the USA now. There will be no filibuster in the Senate. Do you think Trump is going to veto his bills? Will he veto Ryan's plans to destroy Medicare and Social Security? Will he veto the destruction of Wall Street reform and the Consumer Protection Bureau? Will he veto repeal of the minimum wage? Read the Republican Platform I posted. That was not written by cheetorag or whatever you call it.

We know already Obamacare is gone, to be privatized with most of its provisions gone. Trump will repeal all the mileage standards and coal regulations, and every other restriction that business complains about. Do you deny global warming? Deportations will occur, and federal funding will be cut to any cities that offer sanctuary. This is all in the news; and more.

[pbrower2a]

The good news is that politics will be ruthlessly efficient for a change,. The bad news will be that they will be ruthlessly destructive.

All hail the Master Class of the Capitalist Reich! Evil will have descended upon America in the form of a New Feudalism. I expect to thoroughly hate life in that order.

I used to laugh when the Ayatollah Khomeini called America "the Great Satan". That description may soon be true.