It's in the "stars" (predicting by astrology and other means)

[naf140230]

(05-27-2016, 01:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Apparently this astrologer thought he noticed a powerful pattern involving Venus that was 89% correct. But it didn't take me long to verify that this is not the case.

What's wrong with it?

[Eric the Green]

(05-27-2016, 02:44 PM)naf140230 Wrote:

(05-27-2016, 01:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Apparently this astrologer thought he noticed a powerful pattern involving Venus that was 89% correct. But it didn't take me long to verify that this is not the case.

What's wrong with it?

He said that the incumbent party in power wins when Venus is in Libra, and loses when Venus is in Sagittarius, but talked about exceptions that might apply in 2016. He listed 1932 and 1980 as exceptions.

But there are more exceptions than that: 1944, 1936, 1928 the challenging party did not win as the pattern predicts. Nor in 1912, 1904, etc. The fortunes would have to shift every 8 years for the Venus pattern to hold. This has been a recent pattern (with Carter not being able to keep his party in power being the exception) since the 1940s, but not before then. Generally though, this pattern since 1948 favors Trump anyway; not Hillary.

As I see it, when one party attains a degree of dominance, it can stay in power more than 8 years at a time. That was the case in the years after the previous 2 4Ts when the party that took us through the crisis stayed in power. There is good reason to believe that the current course which the Republican Party is on, dooms it to fail as we go through and beyond this 4T too, in which its ideas are contrary to the needs of the time, and to the demographic patterns that impact it.

[naf140230]

(05-27-2016, 04:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-27-2016, 02:44 PM)naf140230 Wrote:

(05-27-2016, 01:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Apparently this astrologer thought he noticed a powerful pattern involving Venus that was 89% correct. But it didn't take me long to verify that this is not the case.

What's wrong with it?

He said that the incumbent party in power wins when Venus is in Libra, and loses when Venus is in Sagittarius, but talked about exceptions that might apply in 2016. He listed 1932 and 1980 as exceptions.

But there are more exceptions than that: 1944, 1936, 1928 the challenging party did not win as the pattern predicts. Nor in 1912, 1904, etc. The fortunes would have to shift every 8 years for the Venus pattern to hold. This has been a recent pattern (with Carter not being able to keep his party in power being the exception) since the 1940s, but not before then. Generally though, this pattern since 1948 favors Trump anyway; not Hillary.

As I see it, when one party attains a degree of dominance, it can stay in power more than 8 years at a time. That was the case in the years after the previous 2 4Ts when the party that took us through the crisis stayed in power. There is good reason to believe that the current course which the Republican Party is on, dooms it to fail as we go through and beyond this 4T too, in which its ideas are contrary to the needs of the time, and to the demographic patterns that impact it.

Your astrology says that Hillary Clinton will win despite not having as strong a horoscope score as Donald Trump. Doesn't it?

[naf140230]

There is the possibility that the Libertarian Party might challenge both the Democrats and the Republicans. What do you think?

[Eric the Green]

(05-29-2016, 03:14 PM)naf140230 Wrote: There is the possibility that the Libertarian Party might challenge both the Democrats and the Republicans. What do you think?

The Green Party is an equal challenge. I think they'll both get more votes this time, from members of both major parties and independents, but not enough to interfere with the results. Johnson and Stein are good enough candidates, but don't have the level of fame and recognition that Ralph Nader and billionaire Ross Perot had.

As you can see, Stein has a good horoscope score. Johnson did too on my old system, but the newer, more-accurate system statistically, is not as good for him. Stein has the problem of not having had much political or government experience, and she's not a celebrity like Trump either.
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

I think the next time which the new moon before election method predicts a loss for the party in power, still likely to be the Democrats, will be the best chance for an independent candidate. I doubt the Republican Party can remain viable in the 2020s. If an upset happens in 2020 though, and Hillary or another Democrat loses, then 2024 will just put the Democrats back in the White House.

[Eric the Green]

(05-28-2016, 10:31 PM)naf140230 Wrote:

(05-27-2016, 04:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-27-2016, 02:44 PM)naf140230 Wrote:

(05-27-2016, 01:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Apparently this astrologer thought he noticed a powerful pattern involving Venus that was 89% correct. But it didn't take me long to verify that this is not the case.

What's wrong with it?

He said that the incumbent party in power wins when Venus is in Libra, and loses when Venus is in Sagittarius, but talked about exceptions that might apply in 2016. He listed 1932 and 1980 as exceptions.

But there are more exceptions than that: 1944, 1936, 1928 the challenging party did not win as the pattern predicts. Nor in 1912, 1904, etc. The fortunes would have to shift every 8 years for the Venus pattern to hold. This has been a recent pattern (with Carter not being able to keep his party in power being the exception) since the 1940s, but not before then. Generally though, this pattern since 1948 favors Trump anyway; not Hillary.

As I see it, when one party attains a degree of dominance, it can stay in power more than 8 years at a time. That was the case in the years after the previous 2 4Ts when the party that took us through the crisis stayed in power. There is good reason to believe that the current course which the Republican Party is on, dooms it to fail as we go through and beyond this 4T too, in which its ideas are contrary to the needs of the time, and to the demographic patterns that impact it.

Your astrology says that Hillary Clinton will win despite not having as strong a horoscope score as Donald Trump. Doesn't it?

yes indeed........

[naf140230]

Did you hear about Trump University? It has been exposed as a fraud. What is the astrology for that?

[Eric the Green]

(06-01-2016, 01:59 PM)naf140230 Wrote: Did you hear about Trump University? It has been exposed as a fraud. What is the astrology for that?

I don't know. I doubt I will look into it.

Donald Trump has an amazing and interesting chart. Fortunately it is not as formidable now in my new system as it appeared to be before. Both he and Hillary have weaker charts (although still positive) than any candidates who have actually been elected president since Herbert Hoover, although LBJ was a somewhat weaker candidate too. That is quite fitting, since that's what the public perceives. 

Trump's own chart would be the best thing to look at to interpret his university. The main item in his chart is so obvious that it scarcely needs mentioning again: Mars in Leo rising. Not everyone with this position is a liar and a fraud by any means. A lot depends on what one does with one's life and one's destiny; all is not pre-ordained. But Mars rising is often belligerent to some degree, and Leo is a sign that can signify pride and arrogant boasting. It is also quite a self-confident position and does have leadership skill. But overpromising people, gambling, boasting, can be expected from someone with Mars in Leo right on his ascendant.

Hillary Clinton also has Mars in Leo (as I do myself), and Al Gore does too. Trump's position right on the ascendant stands out though.

His Venus-Saturn conjunction in Cancer is interesting too. It's often a positive aspect in itself; George Washington is the pre-eminent example, though it was in a different sign. At its best, it shows integrity and endurance. In Cancer though, these two planets together might symbolize his acquisitiveness and disregard for others. This conjunction can be cold and mean. In Cancer, it is oversensitive and protective. Sign of home, family and nationalism, it of course symbolizes his nativism and desire to build walls and impose tariffs. It aligns with Mercury in the US horoscope, so it touches a basic instinct indicated by the US chart for the American people.

[naf140230]

(06-02-2016, 01:06 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-01-2016, 01:59 PM)naf140230 Wrote: Did you hear about Trump University? It has been exposed as a fraud. What is the astrology for that?

I don't know. I doubt I will look into it.

Donald Trump has an amazing and interesting chart. Fortunately it is not as formidable now in my new system as it appeared to be before. Both he and Hillary have weaker charts (although still positive) than any candidates who have actually been elected president since Herbert Hoover, although LBJ was a somewhat weaker candidate too. That is quite fitting, since that's what the public perceives. 

Trump's own chart would be the best thing to look at to interpret his university. The main item in his chart is so obvious that it scarcely needs mentioning again: Mars in Leo rising. Not everyone with this position is a liar and a fraud by any means. A lot depends on what one does with one's life and one's destiny; all is not pre-ordained. But Mars rising is often belligerent to some degree, and Leo is a sign that can signify pride and arrogant boasting. It is also quite a self-confident position and does have leadership skill. But overpromising people, gambling, boasting, can be expected from someone with Mars in Leo right on his ascendant.

Hillary Clinton also has Mars in Leo (as I do myself), and Al Gore does too. Trump's position right on the ascendant stands out though.

His Venus-Saturn conjunction in Cancer is interesting too. It's often a positive aspect in itself; George Washington is the pre-eminent example, though it was in a different sign. At its best, it shows integrity and endurance. In Cancer though, these two planets together might symbolize his acquisitiveness and disregard for others. This conjunction can be cold and mean. In Cancer, it is oversensitive and protective. Sign of home, family and nationalism, it of course symbolizes his nativism and desire to build walls and impose tariffs. It aligns with Mercury in the US horoscope, so it touches a basic instinct indicated by the US chart for the American people.

It looks like that Teflon coating you mentioned he had against criticism is failing.

[naf140230]

Hillary Clinton is winning the nomination. She also has climbed in the polls when compared to Donald Trump.

[naf140230]

Quote:The all-important new moon before election day indicates that the party in power will win again. So this sets up an interesting situation, in which the two main indicators might conflict. If Bernie Sanders is nominated, the new moon plus the fact that his score beats all candidates indicates victory, despite the odds against someone on the Left. But Hillary Clinton's score indicates that she is a weaker candidate than Sanders, even considering her strong qualifications and mainstream appeal. She can still beat Donald Trump, if his own statements and behavior have damaged his chances. I predict Hillary will win, because of the new moon before election, and because Clinton's own Jupiter and 2 other planets rising give her a virtual score almost even with Trump's. We will probably have seen how it all turned out and how my predictions fared for 2016 before you read this chapter.

Trump's recent statements about a judge have damaged his chances.

[gabrielle]

(06-08-2016, 06:44 PM)naf140230 Wrote:

Quote:The all-important new moon before election day indicates that the party in power will win again. So this sets up an interesting situation, in which the two main indicators might conflict. If Bernie Sanders is nominated, the new moon plus the fact that his score beats all candidates indicates victory, despite the odds against someone on the Left. But Hillary Clinton's score indicates that she is a weaker candidate than Sanders, even considering her strong qualifications and mainstream appeal. She can still beat Donald Trump, if his own statements and behavior have damaged his chances. I predict Hillary will win, because of the new moon before election, and because Clinton's own Jupiter and 2 other planets rising give her a virtual score almost even with Trump's. We will probably have seen how it all turned out and how my predictions fared for 2016 before you read this chapter.

Trump's recent statements about a judge have damaged his chances.

Except that in the past, every time he said something "damaging to his chances" he kept getting stronger, and ended up the last one standing.  We'll see.

[naf140230]

(06-08-2016, 11:19 PM)gabrielle Wrote:

(06-08-2016, 06:44 PM)naf140230 Wrote:

Quote:The all-important new moon before election day indicates that the party in power will win again. So this sets up an interesting situation, in which the two main indicators might conflict. If Bernie Sanders is nominated, the new moon plus the fact that his score beats all candidates indicates victory, despite the odds against someone on the Left. But Hillary Clinton's score indicates that she is a weaker candidate than Sanders, even considering her strong qualifications and mainstream appeal. She can still beat Donald Trump, if his own statements and behavior have damaged his chances. I predict Hillary will win, because of the new moon before election, and because Clinton's own Jupiter and 2 other planets rising give her a virtual score almost even with Trump's. We will probably have seen how it all turned out and how my predictions fared for 2016 before you read this chapter.

Trump's recent statements about a judge have damaged his chances.

Except that in the past, every time he said something "damaging to his chances" he kept getting stronger, and ended up the last one standing.  We'll see.

Now that he is the GOP nominee, Donald Trump will now be facing more scrutiny from his fellow Republicans. Don't forget. Hillary Clinton has recently climbed in the polls.

[Galen]

(06-08-2016, 11:19 PM)gabrielle Wrote:

(06-08-2016, 06:44 PM)naf140230 Wrote:

Quote:The all-important new moon before election day indicates that the party in power will win again. So this sets up an interesting situation, in which the two main indicators might conflict. If Bernie Sanders is nominated, the new moon plus the fact that his score beats all candidates indicates victory, despite the odds against someone on the Left. But Hillary Clinton's score indicates that she is a weaker candidate than Sanders, even considering her strong qualifications and mainstream appeal. She can still beat Donald Trump, if his own statements and behavior have damaged his chances. I predict Hillary will win, because of the new moon before election, and because Clinton's own Jupiter and 2 other planets rising give her a virtual score almost even with Trump's. We will probably have seen how it all turned out and how my predictions fared for 2016 before you read this chapter.

Trump's recent statements about a judge have damaged his chances.

Except that in the past, every time he said something "damaging to his chances" he kept getting stronger, and ended up the last one standing.  We'll see.

You have a better grasp of how the Donald functions than just about anyone around here does.  It also appears that we have reached the stage of this fourth turning where people start turning away from the usual suspects and patterns of behavior.

[Galen]

(06-14-2016, 12:10 AM)taramarie Wrote: How could they not know how he functions? Even the kiwi knows and i am not even from America or in that country. Guess when you are  viewing it from the outside bias does not blind you.

Wishful thinking on the part of many.  Consider Eric the Obtuse and his obsessions, an extreme case admittedly, but dreadfully common among the Boomers.  Fourth turnings are the cause of systems and ideas that are well past their expiration date.

Consider this article by Paul Graham, an Xer a bit older than I am, and then think of how Trump with his "Make America Great" is in many ways promising to bring that mid-century world back.  Yet Trump is also a rebellion against the status quo of the last forty years.  Definitely a contradiction but that is but one of many contradictions that will die in fourth turnings.

[pbrower2a]

(06-14-2016, 01:42 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 12:10 AM)taramarie Wrote: How could they not know how he functions? Even the kiwi knows and i am not even from America or in that country. Guess when you are  viewing it from the outside bias does not blind you.

Wishful thinking on the part of many.  Consider Eric the (insults redacted), an extreme case admittedly, but dreadfully common among the Boomers.  Fourth turnings are the cause of systems and ideas that are well past their expiration date.

Consider this article by Paul Graham, an Xer a bit older than I am, and then think of how Trump with his "Make America Great" is in many ways promising to bring that mid-century world back.  Yet Trump is also a rebellion against the status quo of the last forty years.  Definitely a contradiction but that is but one of many contradictions that will die in fourth turnings.

The generational cycle will force America through a Crisis Era, ready or not, and when the Crisis ends, America will go into a 1T obviously analogous to the 1950s, 1870s, or the latter part of the 1790s. Americans will generally be as satisfied with institutions that work well and (mostly) fairly.  Did Washington, Grant, or Eisenhower speak of America being "great"? No more than does Barack Obama, who lis very much a member of Generation X.

The usual sorts of leaders in a Crisis Era are typically principled Idealists with a vision of a better world (Sam Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Benito Juarez, Winston Churchill, FDR, Karl Mannerheim, Mohandas Gandhi) or cynical, callow Reactives who seek to use a Crisis to settle old scores (Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Laval, Quisling, Szalasi, and Pavelic are extreme examples of the type, quite possibly making the WWII Crisis so horrific) with some who seem to be hybrids with the worst of both Idealist and Reactive types (Stalin, maybe Kerensky, Antonescu, and the Nazi general Keitel). A mature Reactive who is much more pragmatic than principled but defers to principle, like Barack Obama, usually achieves top leadership at the end of or after the Crisis.

Is Barack Obama the ideal leader for meeting a Crisis? Do you see anyone comparing him to S. Adams, Franklin, Lincoln, Garibaldi, Juarez, Churchill, F. Roosevelt, Mannerheim, or Gandhi?  But there could be worse -- the weak sorts of 3T leaders like Fillmore, J. Buchanan, Harding, Coolidge, Bruning, Schuschnigg -- who sow the seeds of a 4T through their permissiveness toward the worst trends in human behavior. The world has plenty of would-be Fuhrers, but except in the Infernal State I see none of them in power.

History has yet to judge Barack Obama, and the worst that one can say of him is that he did not solve all problems. The best is that he did few things to make things worse unless one so says from an ideological standpoint. "Make America Great Again" sounds like an appeal to return to a manifest Destiny that Americans have generally long since considered outdated. With what major power do you want America to tangle? Donald Trump is just a horrible leader.

[pbrower2a]

On the article to which Galen refers:

Quote:It wasn't just as consumers that the big companies made us similar. They did as employers too. Within companies there were powerful forces pushing people toward a single model of how to look and act. IBM was particularly notorious for this, but they were only a little more extreme than other big companies. And the models of how to look and act varied little between companies. Meaning everyone within this world was expected to seem more or less the same. And not just those in the corporate world, but also everyone who aspired to it—which in the middle of the 20th century meant most people who weren't already in it. For most of the 20th century, working-class people tried hard to look middle class. You can see it in old photos. Few adults aspired to look dangerous in 1950.

But the rise of national corporations didn't just compress us culturally. It compressed us economically too, and on both ends.

Along with giant national corporations, we got giant national labor unions. And in the mid 20th century the corporations cut deals with the unions where they paid over market price for labor. Partly because the unions were monopolies. [10] Partly because, as components of oligopolies themselves, the corporations knew they could safely pass the cost on to their customers, because their competitors would have to as well. And partly because in mid-century most of the giant companies were still focused on finding new ways to milk economies of scale. Just as startups rightly pay AWS a premium over the cost of running their own servers so they can focus on growth, many of the big national corporations were willing to pay a premium for labor. [11]

Sure, and it largely worked if with few exceptions. Blacks were obvious enough, but even they got the biggest gains of opportunity that they had ever known in America, and gains more sustainable than the precarious advances during the abortive Reconstruction. Married women, unless poor, were driven from the workplace... but most did not want to remain assembly line workers anyway. If their husbands earned well, then they lived well. Women who had professional jobs before the Second World War likely kept those jobs until they retired. teaching and nursing still attracted the best and brightest of women who did not put family first -- and those in those fields often left them as they found Mr. Right. College education for women was often derided as going after the "MRS Degree (marriage to a sure-success of a husband)".

Strong unions ensured that Big Business would not get the chance to enhance profits by exploiting the bargaining weaknesses of workers. Collective bargaining justifies union dues. Workers with solid incomes could participate in the American economy, at the least as consumers.

The scarcity of start-ups reflects in part that the Silent generally preferred going into business as employees than as employers. Corporate America worked well enough. Most of the businesses that educated Silent formed were professional practices that have obvious limitations to growth in employment. The biggest job creators among Silent entrepreneurs include Ross Perot (largely involving government contracting -- which says much about America), Dave Thomas (fast food), T. Boone Pickens (energy wildcatting), and Warren Buffett (investment banking without the investment bank).

But that is over.

Quote:As well as pushing incomes up from the bottom, by overpaying unions, the big companies of the 20th century also pushed incomes down at the top, by underpaying their top management. Economist J. K. Galbraith wrote in 1967 that "There are few corporations in which it would be suggested that executive salaries are at a maximum." [12]

To some extent this was an illusion. Much of the de facto pay of executives never showed up on their income tax returns, because it took the form of perks. The higher the rate of income tax, the more pressure there was to pay employees upstream of it. (In the UK, where taxes were even higher than in the US, companies would even pay their kids' private school tuitions.) One of the most valuable things the big companies of the mid 20th century gave their employees was job security, and this too didn't show up in tax returns or income statistics. So the nature of employment in these organizations tended to yield falsely low numbers about economic inequality. But even accounting for that, the big companies paid their best people less than market price. There was no market; the expectation was that you'd work for the same company for decades if not your whole career. [13]

Your work was so illiquid there was little chance of getting market price. But that same illiquidity also encouraged you not to seek it. If the company promised to employ you till you retired and give you a pension afterward, you didn't want to extract as much from it this year as you could. You needed to take care of the company so it could take care of you. Especially when you'd been working with the same group of people for decades. If you tried to squeeze the company for more money, you were squeezing the organization that was going to take care of them. Plus if you didn't put the company first you wouldn't be promoted, and if you couldn't switch ladders, promotion on this one was the only way up. [14]

To someone who'd spent several formative years in the armed forces, this situation didn't seem as strange as it does to us now. From their point of view, as big company executives, they were high-ranking officers. They got paid a lot more than privates. They got to have expense account lunches at the best restaurants and fly around on the company's Gulfstreams. It probably didn't occur to most of them to ask if they were being paid market price.

I can't speak for James Kenneth Galbraith, who of course is deceased. But 2017 is nigh and 1967 is nearly fifty years in the past -- in an Awakening Era. I could make the case that there was far more opportunity for people to rise from low-ranking positions if one had talent in the 1960s than such opportunity exists today. Executives in the 1960s often had experience on the shop floor within their own company, as sticking with the same employer was a sign of competence and loyalty precious for about 40 years after World War II. Then came some employers (fast food and boutique retailing) with very limited opportunities for their low-paid workers. Loyalty and diligence paid badly in such activities. But the model of the fast-food place became the model for Big Business. New workers would find themselves facing rigid glass ceilings unless they got onto the fast track early, except for a short time in the high-tech sector.

It's telling that immigrants who know something about the American economic system before they get here are more likely to see entrepreneurialism as their only chance at the Good Life. Being an employee? Save your money as a meat-cutter in a sweatshop while sharing a room with six other people so that you can start a restaurant or a cash exchange.

Few people legitimately trust their private employers. Indeed i would tell a bright young person to do anything other than become an employee of Big Business, even without specifically mentioning retailing and food service. Develop a skilled trade, go into government employment, even in military of police work (with bullet-proof vests, cops are more likely to get killed in vehicle crashes than in shootouts with fugitives or perpetrators); be a business owner even if it is 'only' a hole-in-the-wall restaurant or day care, or being an owner-operator of a tractor-trailer, enter a profession even if it is 'only' teaching. Corporate America is now run by pathological narcissists, if not outright sociopaths, out for themselves alone except for those who retain them.

Executives have become spectacularly overpaid as if a privileged elite in their own right -- and they get paid very well for treating subordinates very badly. If there should ever be a proletarian revolution, those would be the first people against the wall before the firing squads that 'revolutionary tribunals establish.

Quote:And in the 20th century there were more and more college graduates. They increased from about 2% of the population in 1900 to about 25% in 2000. In the middle of the century our two big forces intersect, in the form of the GI Bill, which sent 2.2 million World War II veterans to college. Few thought of it in these terms, but the result of making college the canonical path for the ambitious was a world in which it was socially acceptable to work for Henry Ford, but not to be Henry Ford. [16]

I remember this world well. I came of age just as it was starting to break up. In my childhood it was still dominant. Not quite so dominant as it had been. We could see from old TV shows and yearbooks and the way adults acted that people in the 1950s and 60s had been even more conformist than us. The mid-century model was already starting to get old. But that was not how we saw it at the time. We would at most have said that one could be a bit more daring in 1975 than 1965. And indeed, things hadn't changed much yet.

But change was coming soon. And when the Duplo economy started to disintegrate, it disintegrated in several different ways at once. Vertically integrated companies literally dis-integrated because it was more efficient to. Incumbents faced new competitors as (a) markets went global and (b) technical innovation started to trump economies of scale, turning size from an asset into a liability. Smaller companies were increasingly able to survive as formerly narrow channels to consumers broadened. Markets themselves started to change faster, as whole new categories of products appeared. And last but not least, the federal government, which had previously smiled upon J. P. Morgan's world as the natural state of things, began to realize it wasn't the last word after all.

It's not surprising that college education would become more commonplace. Blue-collar workers greatly increased their participation in formal education with the high-school dropout going from the norm to a discreditable rarity. The improvement was that the best and brightest kids from the working class started getting opportunities to attend college if they showed the talent to do something other than to work on an assembly line or do a skilled trade. In view of the escalating cost of college, the best and brightest often now choose to go into the skilled trades which pay better than many professions and don't stick one with a huge student loan that one might have to pay off with a near-minimum-wage job.

Improved technologies in shipping made the cost of manufacturing in the Third World for sale in the First World far less expensive. It costs less to ship a load of shirts or electronic gadgets from China to San Francisco than from Denver to San Francisco. If labor is far cheaper in China than in the interior of the US, then labor-intensive stuff like clothing gets made where the labor is cheapest. In retailing, Wal*Mart could undercut traditional department stores with the aid of information technology that firms like JC Penney, Sears, and Montgomery-Ward were too slow to adapt -- and may never adapt as one has gone into oblivion and the other two are on the brink of their demise. See also May and Federated.

Small companies survived -- by finding niches that the new giants like Wal*Mart and the fast-food chains would not fill. One area is the poverty business that has customers who barely survive -- rip-off financing of consumer electronics, used cars, and furniture. Customers of such places include many employees of Wal*Mart and fast-food places. Such economic activity indicts the American nightmare of extreme disparity between economic elites and their victims.

Predators and prey -- the level of business morality has become the law of the jungle. Some progress! (sardonic irony intended).

Quote:If we think 20th century cohesion disappeared because of few policy tweaks, we'll be deluded into thinking we can get it back (minus the bad parts, somehow) with a few countertweaks. And then we'll waste our time trying to eliminate fragmentation, when we'd be better off thinking about how to mitigate its consequences.

The Crisis Era is far from over. We can yet have revolution and counter-revolution. You can count on disgruntled elites turning to the nastiest actors in politics to thwart any populist resistance to the absolute plutocracy now forming in America, and that could include torture chambers and death camps. That happens when the economic elites operate without conscience but untrammeled greed and get away with it.

One thing is certain: a 1T America will not be a libertarian paradise. It will be conformist in culture and economic results. It will promote, if not force, institutional loyalty. Let us hope that we can answer the question of whether we will have a good 1T or a bad 1T and not whether it will be a 1T. Americans will be tired of crusades and divisive causes. A 4T can bring increases in liberty, can preserve it, can erode it some, or utterly destroy liberty. Let us all choose wisely.

People who sacrifice their essential liberties for some economic gain and certainty usually lose their liberty and never get the economic gain and security that they seek.

[Skabungus]

My thoughts on astrology have matured and now I just wish upon a star.

[Eric the Green]

naf140230 Wrote:I was wondering. What will be the result of Sanders endorsing Clinton, astrologically speaking?

I don't know. I do think the astrological indicators favor her. The new moon before election, using my method, which shows a victory for the party in power in 2016, has about an 87% success record, and Saturn transiting her first house is an at-least 83% victory sign. By contrast, Saturn is now in Trump's 4th house, which has a 75% failure rate so far.

Trump has a slightly better horoscope, but not as great as I originally thought since I did more research and revised my system. His skills as a candidate are questionable, as everyone now knows, even though Hillary's skills are relatively weak as well. But she does have Jupiter rising in her natal chart like her husband, and Jupiter rising in a personal horoscope has a very positive track record. She CAN uplift the people, hard as it may be to believe right now.

Trump has one indicator in his favor, and that's a connection to the people through a conjunction of a planet in his chart with one in America's chart. Hillary has no such connection, except by opposition (Moon to Neptune); not as significant. Trump's Saturn over America's Mercury in the 8th house entirely fits his desire to put up Saturnian barriers on economic dealings (Mercury in 8th house). That aspect of his platform thus resonates with many Americans in the "rust belt" and so on. But statistically, connections to the USA horoscope are not as significant (about 1.6 times chance) as the new moon and Saturn transit indicators.

Also, Hillary and Bernie both have strong connections from their personal significators (Sun, Moon and/or Ascendant) to the current positions of the saecular, generational, visionary outer planets of the zeitgeist (Uranus, Neptune, Pluto), while Trump does not. Bernie's activist, forthright Moon/Mars in Aries is exactly aligned now with revolutionary Uranus, while the primary zeitgeist indicator, compassionate Neptune, now strong in its own sign, is just now entering a conjunction to Hillary's outstanding Moon in Pisces. This echoes the exact opposition of Hillary's Moon to America's Neptune in Virgo too. So the two candidates' strong lunar connections to the zeitgeist are now teaming up, and that could be significant. The Moon rules the common people, which these two candidates stand for. The Moon is also a feminine planet. That probably answers your question as well as it can be answered.

Every president from TR to Reagan had this connection to the zeitgeist; after Reagan, it was lost. Now we have the chance to re-connect our nation to the forward thrust of the generational cycle and the spirit of the times again, under Hillary.

Probably worth posting this analysis again! I think I will.

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

[Eric the Green]

Mike Pence would not help Donald. His horoscope score is only 9-9, and he faces a Saturn Return in the 2016-2020 term.