Micro 4T?

[Dan '82]

Has it started yet?

[Odin]

If Chas' micro-turning theory has any truth to is I would say we are the beginning of the micro-3T. Remember, the 4T only turns 9yo this September.

[Chas'88]

Hello. Dan really knows how to get me back onto old forums like these, doesn't he? Well him, and Mikebert.

In any case, Odin is right. We are in a Crisis-Unraveling parallel to the late 1850s/early 1860s since we're in a Dionysian-type Saeculum and not an Apollonian-type Saeculum.

My consternation was when did the 4T's micro-awakening end? Up until last year I had been thinking 2013 had been when it died. Then last year I moved it to 2014 when it became obvious that BLM was an outgrowth of the micro-awakening (and the hashtag for BLM had first been born in early 2014).

What I've managed to analyze:

2005 - 2009 = Micro-High
2009 - 2014 = Micro-Awakening
2014 - present = Micro-Unraveling --personally I'm going to guess the shoe's going to drop when the market crash that's supposed to come (per Mikebert) will come, which I expect sometime between this September and next September.

After that economic crash occurs though, we still might not be Micro-Crisis, because thanks to Comey's testimony (and Mikebert's Medieval Analysis) I took another look at the Angevin Crisis' Micro-Crisis which was set off by the death of Thomas Becket, and threatened to take Henry II off the throne if he didn't do something dramatic. Things got out of hand when his Barons, his Nomad archetype wife, and his Artist archetype kids started plotting against him to dethrone him and destroy the Angevin Empire he'd built. Henry, being a Civic, did what a Prophet in his situation would never do: and put an end to his fighting with the Church by submitting to their punishment for his comment of: "Will nobody rid me of this meddlesome priest?" Putting an end to the struggle that had dominated the micro-awakening & micro-unraveling of that Crisis swiftly, so that he could put to rest the threats of his wife, her ex-husband, and his children that threatened to tear apart the realm. Submitting to the church and ATONING for his sin against it and Thomas Becket, so that the Barons put aside their differences with him and he rode on to defeat the challenges of his wife and children.

Micro-4Ts in a larger 4T are when the longstanding old issues have to be solved quickly and efficiently, and you can no longer afford to drag things out.

[FLBones]

I don't know about all this stuff but I do think we are in the regeneracy state. We entered it in the summer of 2015. When we enter the climax is to be seen. Likely it will take place in about 5 years.

[Eric the Green]

(06-10-2017, 09:13 AM)Odin Wrote: If Chas' micro-turning theory has any truth to is I would say we are the beginning of the micro-3T. Remember, the 4T only turns 9yo this September.

I also did quite a bit of analysis of micro turnings.

I use the astrological method, which in this case does not imply any actual belief or assertion that the planets influence or indicate events; it's simply the way they analyze and break down cycles. They are called decanates, and other names; but the ancient wisdom of this esoteric approach to the nature of cycles might have something worth looking at.

Using this method, instead of saying every turning starts with a micro high, it says that it starts with a micro phase of the same kind as the turning. So, the first micro phase of a 4T is a micro crisis. In 2012 we entered a phase when the crisis seemed to mellow out, the 4T micro-high.

Since I use 2008 as the start, if we have now entered a new micro-turning, it would stand to reason that we have entered the micro-awakening, and that will prove true if the resistance proves to be the awakening that leads to resolution of the crisis, rather than where the Trumplicans want to take us. In this analysis, the climax of a 4T is always a micro-unravelling. This is followed by the 1T micro high.

Only 9 years in, would indicate the next two microturnings will be longer than 4 years. Using the astrological method (this time yes, it implies the principle of planetary cycles indicating events), the 4T will not end early, because the main indicator of the crisis climax is Uranus returning to its place at the USA's birth, which is its place at 9 Gemini in both 1607 and 1776. This isn't due until 2027. But the 4T micro-unravelling (crisis climax) will start no later than 2024. 2017 does look like an epochal year; starting a micro-turning-- as indicated by the fact that the USA's first Pluto return (due in 2022) and second Neptune semi-return (i.e. like circa 1858-1859) have already now just come within orb (close enough to exact to be indicative), meaning the crisis of death and/or transformation has indeed begun.

[David Horn]

I just read a piece in the NY Times that declares that neo-liberalism may now be dead (for this cycle at least). Apparently, Theresa May has declared that the government is responsible for the well being of the people, and intends to start focusing her government on supporting working people and, heavens forefend, raising taxes on and increasing regulation of the rich. If that crosses the pond, and the GOP starts to act in a similar manner, what does that say about our place in the cycle?

[Eric the Green]

That's good to hear about the UK, if true. I have zero confidence that such a realization would cross the pond.

[Eric the Green]

(06-20-2017, 03:21 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(06-20-2017, 02:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's good to hear about the UK, if true. I have zero confidence that such a realization would cross the pond.

We first need to skim the scum off of our own pond.

Yes, but in my view as a liberal, the pollution of our pond goes much deeper than the scum at the top. It seems to be extremely pervasive and self-perpetuating; and contagious.

[beechnut79]

A long time ago you had mentioned that you don't feel as though the crux of this 4T would hit until at least the turn of the next decade. Does this mean at least two and a half more years of the same old, same old?

[pbrower2a]

I am tempted to believe that we Americans do not solve our big problems until those problems are over us as if we felt a bear stressing our body with its weight and we start to feel the hot, bad breath from its mouth. That means, most likely, either


(1) domestic strife, including secession
(2) a war going catastrophically badly
(3) a severely-mishandled natural disaster that top leadership  bungles badly
(4) a diplomatic calamity  (Russia demands Alaska -- or else; China transforms Thailand or the Philippines into puppet states)
(5) a military coup
(6) an economic meltdown analogous in severity and duration of the 1929-1932 meltdown

Any one of these could transform the public consensus rapidly and set up a regeneracy that starts changing America in a positive direction in January 2021, even if it is in a conservative direction. The Regeneracy of this Crisis could be  one in which people recognize a duty to create wealth even ifm uch of the creation of wealth is unpaid overtime, if elites get to accumulate job-creating wealth faster because they are exempted from taxes while the common man pays brutal taxes, if welfare and wage-hour laws are abolished, and labor unions are abolished so that Americans get economic security in return for a much0-reduced standard and quality of life. I don;t suggest that as the solution, but we might be that desperate. That's how Crises go.*



Any one of these could show that the leadership elite of the time has no clue. My record is clear on these Forums: Donald Trump is extremely incompetent as President and he has plenty of yes-men as backers who can solve nothing. He reminds me of the parental style of an authoritarian brute who uses frequent corporal punishment on children and then wonders why the kids have become disrespectful and rebellious.

I have yet to see President Trump get anything right. That is not so far a question of the objectionable quality of his agenda; he has done little but vilify his predecessor and his opponents. I may have disliked Ronald Reagan, but at the least he got some things done. Maybe those weren't what I wanted, but he was effective.

But what can one expect of a Presidential nominee who showed admiration of murderous, corrupt tyrants and not of the usual conservative heroes like Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher? Donald Trump is a political degeneracy in himself.

*I think it more likely that America undergoes a transition to an acceptance of cradle-to-grave economic security in return for a duty to work. In other words, if you are an unemployed engineer and there are crops to pick, then you will pick the crops so long as you can get to the harvest. But we will work fewer hours because our productivity is far higher than it used to be.

[Mikebert]

(06-23-2017, 03:41 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I have yet to see President Trump get anything right. That is not so far a question of the objectionable quality of his agenda; he has done little but vilify his predecessor and his opponents.

This is true.  But do you not see that Trump in the WH is damaging to the Republican brand in a way that was worse than Bush?  Now that the foreign policy blob has neutered the president I do not see him being able to start WW III.  So what is going to be about is reversing stuff Obama did. He will not be able to start a new conservative narrative as did Reagan.  This means Democrats should get another bite at the apple.

Here is a trend I see as disturbing.  Compare Reagan to Bush II to Trump.  Each of these captured the presidency from the opposition in the post-1980 Republican-dominated political world. Can you see the declining trend is quality? Consider just what sort of Republican will be get in 2032 if the two-and-two pattern continues?

The chief challenge for Democrats, when they do come back to power is, what can they do so that when they eventually are succeeded by a Republican he/she won't be *worse* than Trump?

[pbrower2a]

(08-13-2017, 02:26 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(06-23-2017, 03:41 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I have yet to see President Trump get anything right. That is not so far a question of the objectionable quality of his agenda; he has done little but vilify his predecessor and his opponents.

This is true.  But do you not see that Trump in the WH is damaging to the Republican brand in a way that was worse than Bush?  Now that the foreign policy blob has neutered the president I do not see him being able to start WW III.  So what is going to be about is reversing stuff Obama did. He will not be able to start a new conservative narrative as did Reagan.  This means Democrats should get another bite at the apple.

The question is now whether he gets away with it. The best hope that I have for the circumstances is that the current Trump term is analogous to the second Bush term. The big fault with the analogy is that the preceding eight years were by a competent predecessor who created few problems. Another 'bite at the apple' could be a massive loss of House seats of incumbent Republicans, perhaps three (and that is stretching the possibilities) Senate gains for the Democrats, and massive losses of Governorships and state legislatures. If Americans cannot defeat Trump at the polls until 2020 they can neutralize the powers of the Presidency.

I can imagine President Trump resigning if he loses one or both Houses of Congress. He has not been effective at getting his legislative agenda passed. He has not been strengthening the hold of Republicans on either House of Congress. Diplomatic efforts overseas tend to be centered in trying to outlast this President.  Of course that makes Mike Pence President. He could hardly be less competent but he could be more extreme and abrasive. I would expect a President Pence to double down on an anti-labor, anti-environment, anti-feminist, and Fundamentalist-friendly agenda... and fail.

Democrats will get another bite of the apple.

Quote:Here is a trend I see as disturbing.  Compare Reagan to Bush II to Trump.  Each of these captured the presidency from the opposition in the post-1980 Republican-dominated political world. Can you see the declining trend is quality? Consider just what sort of Republican will be get in 2032 if the two-and-two pattern continues?

I can see the trend, but I also warn that extrapolation of any trend has its obvious hazards. Anyone predicting the S&P index based on stock prices in 1928 and early 1929 had a very flawed basis of prediction.

There is nothing like persistent, catastrophic defeat to force a political party to change its approach and develop a new coalition that together make victory possible. Maybe Republicans will need to piece together a coalition that has room for well-educated people. Sustainable coalitions may have very different people, but they do not have constituencies incompatible with each other. Democrats could keep together a coalition that depended upon white racist agrarians of the South and non-WASP (then largely working-class) people as late as the 1950s. They cannot piece together a coalition of educated rationalists and intellect-bashing Christian fundamentalists.
 

Quote:The chief challenge for Democrats, when they do come back to power is, what can they do so that when they eventually are succeeded by a Republican he/she won't be *worse* than Trump?

Maybe they can start paying attention to constituent service -- delivering the goodies from big projects to aid to vulnerable people. That's how the New Deal worked.

[Eric the Green]

(06-23-2017, 03:00 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: A long time ago you had mentioned that you don't feel as though the crux of this 4T would hit until at least the turn of the next decade. Does this mean at least two and a half more years of the same old, same old?

Very likely.

[David Horn]

(08-13-2017, 02:26 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(06-23-2017, 03:41 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I have yet to see President Trump get anything right. That is not so far a question of the objectionable quality of his agenda; he has done little but vilify his predecessor and his opponents.

This is true.  But do you not see that Trump in the WH is damaging to the Republican brand in a way that was worse than Bush?  Now that the foreign policy blob has neutered the president I do not see him being able to start WW III.  So what is going to be about is reversing stuff Obama did. He will not be able to start a new conservative narrative as did Reagan.  This means Democrats should get another bite at the apple.

Here is a trend I see as disturbing.  Compare Reagan to Bush II to Trump.  Each of these captured the presidency from the opposition in the post-1980 Republican-dominated political world. Can you see the declining trend is quality? Consider just what sort of Republican will be get in 2032 if the two-and-two pattern continues?

The chief challenge for Democrats, when they do come back to power is, what can they do so that when they eventually are succeeded by a Republican he/she won't be *worse* than Trump?

Obama had a similar problem to Trump, without the  narcissism.  He tried to run his agenda in a vacuum, took on healthcare first, then lost Congress and any chance to do more.  After 2010, almost everything Obama accomplished was by executive order, and easily overturned.  If the next not-Trump has more legislative savvy, he/she could parlay an infrastructure program (almost guaranteed to be popular with voters) into other less popular programs that will be beneficial in the longer term.  If the net result is a booming economy, plenty of good jobs and rising pay, the rewards will transfer to his/her replacement.  

Then again, politics is now so bad that the next person may have to be Jimmy Carter 2.0 just to calm things down.  Count that as a failure.

[Mikebert]

(08-13-2017, 05:23 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: There is nothing like persistent, catastrophic defeat to force a political party to change its approach and develop a new coalition that together make victory possible.

The premise of the equation (that the 2 and 2 pattern continues) would mean neither party would experience persistent, catastrophic defeat sufficient to force the party to to change its approach and develop a new coalition

Quote:Maybe they can start paying attention to constituent service -- delivering the goodies from big projects to aid to vulnerable people. That's how the New Deal worked.

Well of course, that's what I hope.  But I would point out that Democrats dismantled the New Deal in the 1960's and 1970's, apparently without being aware they were doing so.  So I am not sure they know how to put it back together.

[Mikebert]

(08-14-2017, 04:06 PM)David Horn Wrote: Obama had a similar problem to Trump, without the  narcissism.  He tried to run his agenda in a vacuum, took on healthcare first, then lost Congress and any chance to do more.  After 2010, almost everything Obama accomplished was by executive order, and easily overturned.

This is part of why I fear what will have should Dems return to power in 2020. They focused on expanding the welfare state and not on fixing the economy.  I see the same lack of imagination on the part of Sanders, who ran on a more robust welfare state, with higher taxes to pay for it. It seems that for him the purpose of the taxes is to pay for the new programs. But this is the reverse.  The purpose for the programs is to sell the increased taxes.  Then once in power you hike the taxes permanently, but do not implement the programs,  Rather you opt for a 3-4 year ginormous stimulus to jump start the economy, which once it takes effect is phased out, while the surge in revenues radically shifts the deficit to a surplus.  This will tamp down inflationary forces allowing you to keep interest rates at rock bottom levels even as wages begin to head up. As the stock market begins to surge you hike long-term capital gains taxes to 30-35% to prevent bubble formation and you use the military (where possible) to take out tax havens that refuse to reveal their depositors to the US government.

If it works to reflate the economy from a serious downturn you will probably keep your Congressional majority and get re-elected. In you second term you can push for things like universal health care and so on.  If you can get that then you get a third term and that would confirm 2008 as a critical election and a 4T start, which would make the 2008-2032 fit into a 4T category quite neatly.

This has always been the most "textbook" scenario, which was why I thought it very very unlikely.  Besides I thought Clinton was going to win in 2016 in which case 2008 would still be confirmed as a 4T start, but I could not see anyway things could work out as successful.

Of course they are also very neatly-fitting scenarios where Trump is successful, but these invalidate the S&H cycle, but not the other cycles I work with.  I had thought these scenarios were more likely that the one above, but I had thought Trump would be focusing more on the head of state role leaving the executive management role to Pence.  It turns out that Trump apparently does not like to entertain.

[David Horn]

(08-14-2017, 07:44 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 04:06 PM)David Horn Wrote: Obama had a similar problem to Trump, without the  narcissism.  He tried to run his agenda in a vacuum, took on healthcare first, then lost Congress and any chance to do more.  After 2010, almost everything Obama accomplished was by executive order, and easily overturned.

This is part of why I fear what will have should Dems return to power in 2020. They focused on expanding the welfare state and not on fixing the economy.  I see the same lack of imagination on the part of Sanders, who ran on a more robust welfare state, with higher taxes to pay for it. It seems that for him the purpose of the taxes is to pay for the new programs. But this is the reverse.  The purpose for the programs is to sell the increased taxes.  Then once in power you hike the taxes permanently, but do not implement the programs,  Rather you opt for a 3-4 year ginormous stimulus to jump start the economy, which once it takes effect is phased out, while the surge in revenues radically shifts the deficit to a surplus.  This will tamp down inflationary forces allowing you to keep interest rates at rock bottom levels even as wages begin to head up. As the stock market begins to surge you hike long-term capital gains taxes to 30-35% to prevent bubble formation and you use the military (where possible) to take out tax havens that refuse to reveal their depositors to the US government.

If it works to reflate the economy from a serious downturn you will probably keep your Congressional majority and get re-elected. In you second term you can push for things like universal health care and so on.  If you can get that then you get a third term and that would confirm 2008 as a critical election and a 4T start, which would make the 2008-2032 fit into a 4T category quite neatly.

This has always been the most "textbook" scenario, which was why I thought it very very unlikely.  Besides I thought Clinton was going to win in 2016 in which case 2008 would still be confirmed as a 4T start, but I could not see anyway things could work out as successful.

This is possible though less likely now that the Alt-Right and AntiFa have moved center stage.  If this was a 2T, then the ideological argument for the hearts and souls of American Voters would be expected ... but that's not where we are.  For this to play-out as a 4T, the fight has to escalate until it's resolved by something akin to an internal war (revolution is too strong a word), or through imposition of something like martial law.  I don't see either happening.  

Mikebert Wrote:Of course they are also very neatly-fitting scenarios where Trump is successful, but these invalidate the S&H cycle, but not the other cycles I work with.  I had thought these scenarios were more likely that the one above, but I had thought Trump would be focusing more on the head of state role leaving the executive management role to Pence.  It turns out that Trump apparently does not like to entertain.

Trump and his acolytes are too few and too unfocused to be successful, though they can be destructive.  Trump seems to like chaos, and the opposing forces for moderation are just as unfocused in their way, so chaos may be the net product of the Trump years.  If that is not reversed through a massive wave election in 2020, this doesn't get resolved this saeculum.

[Mikebert]

Dave, I am beginning to feel the way you do. But this is purely emotion right now.  It was like early 2001, after I had lost a fortune shoring the market and was losing faith in my prediction of a secular bear market beginning in 2000. I starting buying back into the market in small ways and lost still more money as my predictions started coming true. SO this time I have stuck to my guns as the market continues to advance and all hope for any sort of positive outcome for this 4T recedes.  It IS hard to keep the faith, and that is all it seems to be now.

[pbrower2a]

(08-14-2017, 04:06 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-13-2017, 02:26 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(06-23-2017, 03:41 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I have yet to see President Trump get anything right. That is not so far a question of the objectionable quality of his agenda; he has done little but vilify his predecessor and his opponents.

This is true.  But do you not see that Trump in the WH is damaging to the Republican brand in a way that was worse than Bush?  Now that the foreign policy blob has neutered the president I do not see him being able to start WW III.  So what is going to be about is reversing stuff Obama did. He will not be able to start a new conservative narrative as did Reagan.  This means Democrats should get another bite at the apple.

Here is a trend I see as disturbing.  Compare Reagan to Bush II to Trump.  Each of these captured the presidency from the opposition in the post-1980 Republican-dominated political world. Can you see the declining trend is quality? Consider just what sort of Republican will be get in 2032 if the two-and-two pattern continues?

The chief challenge for Democrats, when they do come back to power is, what can they do so that when they eventually are succeeded by a Republican he/she won't be *worse* than Trump?

Obama had a similar problem to Trump, without the  narcissism.  He tried to run his agenda in a vacuum, took on healthcare first, then lost Congress and any chance to do more.  After 2010, almost everything Obama accomplished was by executive order, and easily overturned.  If the next not-Trump has more legislative savvy, he/she could parlay an infrastructure program (almost guaranteed to be popular with voters) into other less popular programs that will be beneficial in the longer term.  If the net result is a booming economy, plenty of good jobs and rising pay, the rewards will transfer to his/her replacement. 

Obama faced a highly-scripted, highly-organized, often vile, extreme partisanship as no prior President has experienced in living memory. What other President ever faced such vicious  memes as

"The ZOO has an African Lion
the WHITE HOUSE has a Lyin' AFRICAN

Truth be told, the President wasn't a liar. But when the first thing that Mitch McConnell says is that his first priority is to ensure that Obama be a one-term President... many wanted him to fail no matter what.  

But that is the past. President Trump has shot himself in the foot so many times that he thinks he deserves a Purple Heart. (The Armed Services do not issue Purple Hearts for self-inflicted wounds).

Obama never had a chance to be the great President that he wanted to be. He was good, probably better than average... and considering the wealth of opportunities for "President Emeritus" that Presidents from Hoover to Clinton have used if they were able to take the role (so long as they didn't burn their bridges as did Johnson or lose their ability as did Reagan. Should the Presidency devolve to someone not in the current line of succession (let us say Mitt Romney), then the opprobrium that Republicans have loaded onto their scapegoat will be repudiated quickly. Obama has virtues practically the opposite of Trump's vices.

Conservatives need to recognize that Barack Obama was a good President even  if they disagreed with him. Should the Republicans end up in the political wilderness as defaults against incompetent, poorly-suited, or corrupt Democrats in most of America, then their next successful President may be much like Obama...or Eisenhower., who really did take back the presidency for eight years following five terms of bad elections. (Truman would have won in a landslide in 1948 had it not been for the Dixiecrat secession). Someone rational, with an unobjectionable family life, reasonably eloquent, adept at learning from minor errors before doing things on a big scale, free of narcissism, squeaky-clean in avoiding scandals, but with a more free-market, business-friendly agenda... well, that is what the Republicans could have used in 2016. They did not get that. They got Donald Trump, and by now you know what I think of him. The rest or the world simply bides its time awaiting his departure, often in places now more politically pleasant than the USA.

Quote:Then again, politics is now so bad that the next person may have to be Jimmy Carter 2.0 just to calm things down.  Count that as a failure.

Carter at least meant well. Maybe his attempt to graft the ways of his well-run governorship on America (with such ideas as zero-based budgeting) might have been good ideas but they were incompatible with political reality. Of course, Carter was and is a fundamentally-decent person, which Donald Trump isn't Donald Trump promised to make America operate like a business. Of course in American business the common man is simply another machine obliged to subordinate his hopes and dreams to the immediate desires of his superiors, which means that if someone gives you tickets to the Yankees-Red Sox game and your employer has dishes for you to wash, you wash the dishes. As a customer of Donald Trump you are nothing more than a monthly check or direct debit as large as he can get away with for an overpriced rental for which there is no viable alternative.

Trump's model is a failure in part because he is an ethical failure as a businessman (I have cause to believe that he has connections to organized crime), but also because government cannot operate like a for-profit business with a tycoon operating as a feudal lord. It is bad enough to work for an employer who sees one as nothing more than a machine of meat with no rightful dream except to live in subordination for bare existence. When government so operates with a despotic ruler, people might want revo0lutionary change at home if emigration to a more free-wheeling society is unavailable (recall Fiddler on the Roof)*. American business elites often operate like capitalists or rentiers in a Marxist stereotype, like the regrettable reality of a bureaucratic nomenklatura of Marxist reality, or outright crooks of criminal syndicates with entrepreneurs and politicians as mere puppets, however much those puppets can prosper.

*Imperial Russia was a terrible place in which to be a jew. It was generally also a terrible place in which to be a Russian!

[pbrower2a]

(08-21-2017, 02:02 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: A few things made me warm up to Obama or at least, not hate him.

Most of them were the behaviors of fellow Rightists. I can't even properly call them Rightists, because the behaviors were not true Rightist ones. They were actually totalitarian.

Besides all of the racially charged epithets and Birther bullshit during the '08 election, things like the infamous "you lie!" moment. Things like people thinking Putin was some sort of role model. Things like the nauseating repetition of Judge Jeanine vis a vis Bengazi. These were most un-Reagan-like behaviors. It's both sad and amazing to me that people who consider themselves to be on The Right fail to see this. Their powers of self reflection are apparently nearly nil.

I recognized the avoidance of patronage deals and the respect for protocol and precedent in law. Such fits conservative expectations.

As I have suggested in another thread (basically "Imperial Decline"), the Right has begun to seek to bleed the government for easy profits -- something long considered contrary to conservative principle.