Originally Posted by Normal

I know the recession technically began in late 2007, but I think Eric is correct - the economic downturn wasn't something the average American (who doesn't pay attention to politics or the markets) thought about until September 2008. In September 2008, we were told that Wall Street and the credit markets had slowed down to a complete halt and that we were on the verge of a second Great Depression. McCain and Obama suspended their campaigns and all of a sudden, things felt urgent. In some respects, the saeculum and the turnings are more about how people felt and how people reacted than it is about facts. Because again, the fact of the matter is, the recession began in 2007. But people didn't really feel it or talk about it until September of '08.

I think what most people were worried about in the summer of 2008 was the rise in gas prices. Remember $4.00 gas? Of course, we're not that far from it now.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

That's not quite true. All through the first half of 2008, people in Washington, including the President, were concerned about a recession. He even signed the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, spending $152 billion in tax rebates, to prevent or shorten a recession.

Maybe there was some concern about a possible recession, but no-one said we were IN a recession, much less a "great" one.

I think what most people were worried about in the summer of 2008 was the rise in gas prices. Remember $4.00 gas? Of course, we're not that far from it now.

That's true, and it was one of the factors that pushed the US into recession by the Fall.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I think what most people were worried about in the summer of 2008 was the rise in gas prices. Remember $4.00 gas? Of course, we're not that far from it now.

Sure, but after the great near-death experience of Sept. 2008, gas prices dropped like a rock. Why? Because people were losing jobs left and right, markets came to a screeching halt, and for like 2 weeks, people seriously thought the world was going to end. So who can afford to pay $4.00 a gallon for gas? We went from $4.00/gal gas to $1.75/gal in just a couple of short months, maybe even just a few weeks. In economist terms, "the market corrected itself."

At which exact point did recent years begin to resemble the 1850s?

The early 1920's also included the Teapot Dome scandal, which was the biggest government scandal up until Watergate. To this day Warren Harding, who died before his term was up, is considered at or near the bottom in Presidential rankings. What probably saved Nixon from similar fate was his genius when it came to foreign affairs. Maybe he would have been more effective had he been Secretary of State under another President as opposed to being President himself. Don't recall much about Teapot Dome except that some of Harding's cabinet members went to prison, and he himself was threatened with impeachment.

Originally Posted by Normal

Sure, but after the great near-death experience of Sept. 2008, gas prices dropped like a rock. Why? Because people were losing jobs left and right, markets came to a screeching halt, and for like 2 weeks, people seriously thought the world was going to end. So who can afford to pay $4.00 a gallon for gas? We went from $4.00/gal gas to $1.75/gal in just a couple of short months, maybe even just a few weeks. In economist terms, "the market corrected itself."

But we are now back around $4.00 a gallon again. Makes you wonder why the public feels we can maintain this charade forever. Isn't it time we start to explore not only alternative energy, but alternative forms of transportation as well? I still believe we are going to need to reduce auto dependency eventually, but I doubt very much that it will happen within this decade.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

At which exact point did recent years begin to resemble the 1850s?

Probably this year, if a compromise can be hammered out with the budget; thus making 2013 roughly equivalent to 1850. But the divide is getting worse, and whatever agreement is reached this year will only postpone a possible break-up later.

2011 resembled 1848, with the dominoes of countries' regimes falling to revolutions, enflamed by economic troubles. The Iraq and Mexican Wars are parallel, both being unnecessary invasions and conquests by US imperialist presidencies, and both stirred controversy. The famine and worldwide depression of 1845-1848 parallels 2008-2011. The economy began to recover somewhat later in 1848, much like it is doing now. A worldwide industrial revolution took off in 1850 or so. I suspect that by the end of this decade, the green tech revolution will be in full swing; the parallel thus coming a bit later.

Perhaps if President Obama could sponsor a world's fair dedicated to the new forms of energy, that could be a catalyst like the Crystal Palace Exhibition sponsored by Prince Albert in 1851. Good idea!

Originally Posted by TimWalker

At which exact point did recent years begin to resemble the 1850s?

I'd say 2008 with the beginning of the 4T and the election of a black Muslim socialist president. Or at least, someone who much of America thinks is a black Muslim socialist president. Perception is reality sometimes, you know.

Does anybody know of a rather long 4T, which turned harsher than the present?

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Right, both the '20s and '90s were classic Unraveling decades.

Of course the '20s were the final decade of the Unraveling and the 1990s were the middle.

Contrary to myth, the 1920s were at least at the start an era of mass sobriety. Most people obeyed Prohibition. Those who did did so on the sly. The drinkers of the 1920s made better copy for fiction than did the teetotalers.

The 80-year rule comes into play, and it would seem that the '20s and Double-Zero Decade shared the reckless speculation, increasing inequality, and conservative ascendancy with weak and often corrupt leadership. Of course I could argue that the two dreadful terms of Dubya as President telescoped the twelve years of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover combined into eight years. Of course the Roaring 'Twenties culminated in the Crash of 1929 (really the peak -- the big crash came in 1930) that looks much like the economic meltdown that began in 2007. The novel Babbitt fit both the Roaring 'Twenties and the Double-Zero decade far better than any decades between them.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

The early 1920's also included the Teapot Dome scandal, which was the biggest government scandal up until Watergate. To this day Warren Harding, who died before his term was up, is considered at or near the bottom in Presidential rankings. What probably saved Nixon from similar fate was his genius when it came to foreign affairs. Maybe he would have been more effective had he been Secretary of State under another President as opposed to being President himself. Don't recall much about Teapot Dome except that some of Harding's cabinet members went to prison, and he himself was threatened with impeachment.

Teapot Dome -- Enron.

The gritty ghost town post may be a preview of the near future.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Maybe there was some concern about a possible recession, but no-one said we were IN a recession, much less a "great" one.


That's true, and it was one of the factors that pushed the US into recession by the Fall.

The War on Terror wasn't declared until Oct. 7, 2001. Autumn. 9/11 would have been a more impressive prediction, anyway, as a conflict in the Middle East when Rumsfeld is in a cabinet position is like predicting heat in Arizona.

As for the recession, most people were aware of an economic downturn where they were, they were just unaware that it was a national event. There was also definitely national mood shifts prior to 2008. There was the mood shift of 2004/5, which was more financially driven though lacking in vision and which also pretty well declared liberalism dead, and then the shift in 2006 which was driven by a belief in oversight and declaring liberalism very much alive.

In 2006/7 it was called the subprime lending crisis, and it was being talked about in 2006, it was also addressed in 2005 while everybody in industry stood around and denied it. Just because the talking heads weren't pushing the issue doesn't mean it wasn't occurring, it's just that the focus wasn't there yet.

There was a shift in people's emphasis after 2008, yes, but people's response isn't the crisis. Otherwise, WWII and The Great Depression would be seen as two seperate crisis, or that The Great Depression just was part of the unravelling. It's the narrative, not the response to the narrative, that counts, and the narrative has got to begin in 2005 at least, when the forclosures really started to hit. People not responding correctly is part of our crisis.

Originally Posted by Kepi

The War on Terror wasn't declared until Oct. 7, 2001. Autumn. 9/11 would have been a more impressive prediction, anyway, as a conflict in the Middle East when Rumsfeld is in a cabinet position is like predicting heat in Arizona.

No, the war on terror was declared soon after the attack; which was immediately pronounced an act of war; ergo we were at war. Oct 7 was the start of the actual US invasion of Afghanistan. But I consider the attack itself as the start of the war.
I also knew that it would start as an attack on the USA, but not sure I published that anywhere.

As for the recession, most people were aware of an economic downturn where they were, they were just unaware that it was a national event. There was also definitely national mood shifts prior to 2008. There was the mood shift of 2004/5, which was more financially driven though lacking in vision and which also pretty well declared liberalism dead, and then the shift in 2006 which was driven by a belief in oversight and declaring liberalism very much alive.

In 2005 the economy was on an apparent upswing and the speculation was at its height. The electoral shifts of 2004 and 2006 were nothing unusual at all. Presidents often score well in a re-election bid, and poorly in off-year elections. A second off-year election is well-known for being bad for the president's party. 1998 was perhaps the only exception, since the 1994 off year had been so bad. That pattern may repeat in 2014.

In 2006/7 it was called the subprime lending crisis, and it was being talked about in 2006, it was also addressed in 2005 while everybody in industry stood around and denied it. Just because the talking heads weren't pushing the issue doesn't mean it wasn't occurring, it's just that the focus wasn't there yet.

Yes, and people were still buying sub-prime loans in 2005, and WAMU executives were celebrating their success with them even later. It was "addressed" by virtually no-one. The focus is everything.

Here's a good chart. Make of it what you will.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/home-f...re-statistics/

There was a shift in people's emphasis after 2008, yes, but people's response isn't the crisis. Otherwise, WWII and The Great Depression would be seen as two separate crisis, or that The Great Depression just was part of the unravelling. It's the narrative, not the response to the narrative, that counts, and the narrative has got to begin in 2005 at least, when the foreclosures really started to hit. People not responding correctly is part of our crisis.

No, the mood shifted; that's the point. Noone thought we were in a crisis at all until Sept.2008, and the economy was not in danger until then, despite some foreclosure and bank problems. 1929 = 2008. Great Depression=Great Recession. The great war, if it comes, will come in 2025, at the end of the 4T, just as WWII came at the end of the previous 4T.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Does anybody know of a rather long 4T, which turned harsher than the present?

The Revolution was certainly rather long, by S&H dates 22 years, and it may turn out to have been harsher. The Wars of the Roses was long too, perhaps 25 years; and harsher, at least for those who were involved in them; but that was in the days when all turnings were supposed to have been longer.

Archetypally, our 4T will be a mixture of the previous one, the civil war, the Revolution, and the Wars of the Roses.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Does anybody know of a rather long 4T, which turned harsher than the present?

Try Russia between the February Revolution that toppled Nicholas II and the Battle of Berlin. Perhaps because the Crimean War was a Crisis War for Russia, Russia was advanced in the generational cycle so that it was approaching the end of its Unraveling, the ballet score of Le Sacre du Printemps (1913) by Igor Stravinsky illustrating what was possible. It might have some allure and even beauty, but this is no harbinger of a sane, humane, and orderly world.

Imperial Russia may have had a rotten economic and political order -- but it was far from backward in its cultural and technological achievements. Other countries (notably Germany and Hungary) may have had revolutions aping that of Russia, but those failed.

I see where Russia was in 1917 and see it as somewhat analogous to the US at the start of the American Civil War, with the Idealist generation rifted into two hostile, exclusive camps that sought to destroy each other. The difference was that both sides -- Reds and Whites alike -- were completely devoid of any gentlemanly qualities. Set to murder the other side upon victory the winning side did exactly that. After the Bolshevik coup that overthrew the weak Provisional Government Russia underwent three years of brutal civil war.

Eventually the Bolsheviks concluded that Russia was unfit for a radical transformation and got a fairly modest time of the semi-capitalist New Economic Policy... until Stalin took over and went on a bloody campaign of collectivization. Then came the Great Purge, after which Stalin ran out of obvious victims. Then Hitler made the offer that Stalin could not refuse (Finland and the Baltic Republic in full and large slices of Poland and Romania) with a military alliance that Hitler betrayed -- as brutally as possible. Then came what could be the most horrible warfare in modern times.

Thirty years, and three waves of Crisis horror.

Okay, here's the thing, you can't be overly technical about one timing aspect (9/11 is technically in Summer, even though most people would consider it fall) and then be willing to have vagueness in another (The War on Terror (Like the Wars on Poverty and Drugs before it) is not an actual war, it's a series of extremely expensive and ineffective public security measures, the actual war is Afghanistan, which wasn't declared until Oct. 7).

The 2005 economy was clearly cracked by all analysis, and it was a time when the concerns over it were beginning to creep in. Speculation has been a constant economic problem since before the housing crisis (how do you think we're keeping gas at over $3/gal on average). The dip in 2008-2009 was an abberation, not the norm. Meanwhile Gold, which is a fantastic indicator or worry has been going up sharply since 2005.

So 2005 sees the beginnings of all these trends, and that's really what matters, the response or perception, not so much. It doesn't take a "big event" or a mass panic. It takes a change in trends. The overall economic change was in 2005, that's where you mark the crisis.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Try Russia between the February Revolution that toppled Nicholas II and the Battle of Berlin. Perhaps because the Crimean War was a Crisis War for Russia, Russia was advanced in the generational cycle so that it was approaching the end of its Unraveling, the ballet score of Le Sacre du Printemps (1913) by Igor Stravinsky illustrating what was possible. It might have some allure and even beauty, but this is no harbinger of a sane, humane, and orderly world.

Imperial Russia may have had a rotten economic and political order -- but it was far from backward in its cultural and technological achievements. Other countries (notably Germany and Hungary) may have had revolutions aping that of Russia, but those failed.

I see where Russia was in 1917 and see it as somewhat analogous to the US at the start of the American Civil War, with the Idealist generation rifted into two hostile, exclusive camps that sought to destroy each other. The difference was that both sides -- Reds and Whites alike -- were completely devoid of any gentlemanly qualities. Set to murder the other side upon victory the winning side did exactly that. After the Bolshevik coup that overthrew the weak Provisional Government Russia underwent three years of brutal civil war.

Eventually the Bolsheviks concluded that Russia was unfit for a radical transformation and got a fairly modest time of the semi-capitalist New Economic Policy... until Stalin took over and went on a bloody campaign of collectivization. Then came the Great Purge, after which Stalin ran out of obvious victims. Then Hitler made the offer that Stalin could not refuse (Finland and the Baltic Republic in full and large slices of Poland and Romania) with a military alliance that Hitler betrayed -- as brutally as possible. Then came what could be the most horrible warfare in modern times.

Thirty years, and three waves of Crisis horror.

Yeah, that was certainly long and harsh. Wins the prize! Although I imagine Chas could bring up the 30 Years War in Germany.

Was Russia really in a saeculum in the Western sense, since it had been so authoritarian and thus immobile for so long? That is one possible qualifying point.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Okay, here's the thing, you can't be overly technical about one timing aspect (9/11 is technically in Summer, even though most people would consider it fall) and then be willing to have vagueness in another (The War on Terror (Like the Wars on Poverty and Drugs before it) is not an actual war, it's a series of extremely expensive and ineffective public security measures, the actual war is Afghanistan, which wasn't declared until Oct. 7).

It was clear Al Qaeda was making actual war on the USA, and had attacked just like Japan did in 1941. It just took a while to get the American military response ready, just as it did then. But we had already declared war on Al Qaeda immediately after the attack. Bush said "they would hear from us," on Sept.12. As for the Afghans, the issue was whether they would turn over the attackers to us. They didn't, so we attacked them.

The 2005 economy was clearly cracked by all analysis, and it was a time when the concerns over it were beginning to creep in. Speculation has been a constant economic problem since before the housing crisis (how do you think we're keeping gas at over $3/gal on average). The dip in 2008-2009 was an abberation, not the norm. Meanwhile Gold, which is a fantastic indicator or worry has been going up sharply since 2005.

So 2005 sees the beginnings of all these trends, and that's really what matters, the response or perception, not so much. It doesn't take a "big event" or a mass panic. It takes a change in trends. The overall economic change was in 2005, that's where you mark the crisis.

Very few people believe such a thing. Notice the foreclosures chart; 2005 was not even a blip in that. And the crisis was not even about that, but on the speculation by finance companies in derivatives that went sour. 2005 was an economic upswing. You can deny it I suppose, if you choose. But "concerns beginning to creep in" is not a crisis mood, or a catalyst for one; so not a 4T by the standards of S&H; which seem valid enough.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The 80-year rule comes into play, and it would seem that the '20s and Double-Zero Decade shared the reckless speculation, increasing inequality, and conservative ascendancy with weak and often corrupt leadership. Of course I could argue that the two dreadful terms of Dubya as President telescoped the twelve years of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover combined into eight years. Of course the Roaring 'Twenties culminated in the Crash of 1929 (really the peak -- the big crash came in 1930) that looks much like the economic meltdown that began in 2007. The novel Babbitt fit both the Roaring 'Twenties and the Double-Zero decade far better than any decades between them.

Given the fact that my great-grandmother was about 34 with the Great Depression started and I was 42 when the Great Recession started, the age difference between us corresponds very nicely with the fact that I am early Generation X and she was late Lost. We were both in the same stage of our lives when economic disaster struck. The advantage I had in this disaster was an interest in history and her still being alive until I was 27. Everything that is happening now has the same sort of thirties vibe of the events she described. These are two of the main reasons I am convinced that the fourth turning started about 2008 and we are not even close to being done with it.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Of course the '20s were the final decade of the Unraveling and the 1990s were the middle.

Contrary to myth, the 1920s were at least at the start an era of mass sobriety. Most people obeyed Prohibition. Those who did did so on the sly. The drinkers of the 1920s made better copy for fiction than did the teetotalers.

The 80-year rule comes into play, and it would seem that the '20s and Double-Zero Decade shared the reckless speculation, increasing inequality, and conservative ascendancy with weak and often corrupt leadership. Of course I could argue that the two dreadful terms of Dubya as President telescoped the twelve years of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover combined into eight years. Of course the Roaring 'Twenties culminated in the Crash of 1929 (really the peak -- the big crash came in 1930) that looks much like the economic meltdown that began in 2007. The novel Babbitt fit both the Roaring 'Twenties and the Double-Zero decade far better than any decades between them.

--- agreed, & the 1990's & the 1910's had their commonalities as well, starting from the top down: we had the Clintons during the 1990's & the Wilsons during the teens- infact Edith Wilson is sometimes called the 1st woman Prez. Although the Clintons did not have a World War to contend with, there were excursions into Kosovo, & I believe Somalia. Also the Iraq sanctions. Both 2nd terms were thwarted by repugs- Senate repugs refused to authorize our entry into the League of Nations, which was Wilson's baby. In the 1990's repugs forced the Contract on America upon us, albeit only after the most draconian portions were removed.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Does anybody know of a rather long 4T, which turned harsher than the present?

The Thirty Years War in Germany. It began as an internal problem--the principalities of the Holy Roman Empire fighting amongst one another on Catholic and Protestant dividing lines... but soon other nations started dog piling on top of that and starting the war back up after a brief intermission and such, just completely devastating the land (armies purposely tore up the land, etc.) and displacing and killing the people (especially non-combatants). Hell, by the 1680s/1690s Germany still hadn't fully recovered from that Crisis, so the promise of good land and religious tolerance in Pennsylvania seemed like the promise of Heaven on Earth. And that's how most of my German ancestors came to America, because even 50 years later, things still hadn't recovered--that's how bad that crisis was. My signature comes from a play about that period, and bespeaks about how the war just seemed unending to the people who lived through it.

--------------------------

Also pbrower according to Justin'77, who lived in Russia for several years and got to know its society pretty well, he concluded that WWII was part of their high, and that it's simply just part of the national characteristic for Russia to finish solving its own problems only to have its neighbors go ballistic on it, thus creating a "Recovery" mood more than what we think of as a "High" mood, and explaining the darker perspective of the Russian mindset. He used to talk a lot about how Russian society is currently in a High, having lived there until recently. And I can see it. Also keep in mind that Hitler's invasion never really got far into the heart of the Russian homeland--but it affected mostly the Eastern European land that would later break-off after the Soviet Union dissolved. That's my own observation, but I trust Justin's observation, having lived in the culture.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

The Thirty Years War in Germany. It began as an internal problem--the principalities of the Holy Roman Empire fighting amongst one another on Catholic and Protestant dividing lines... but soon other nations started dog piling on top of that and starting the war back up after a brief intermission and such, just completely devastating the land (armies purposely tore up the land, etc.) and displacing and killing the people (especially non-combatants). Hell, by the 1680s/1690s Germany still hadn't fully recovered from that Crisis, so the promise of good land and religious tolerance in Pennsylvania seemed like the promise of Heaven on Earth. And that's how most of my German ancestors came to America, because even 50 years later, things still hadn't recovered--that's how bad that crisis was. My signature comes from a play about that period, and bespeaks about how the war just seemed unending to the people who lived through it.

Only that, according to Toynbee/Wright/Ferrar/Dehio, the 30 Years' War does not qualify as a Crisis era, no matter the bloodshed and devastation (not least brought upon Germany by my ancestors). As stated in TFT (p. 37-38), "a cycle-ending war must have decisive social and political consequences. It must end an era. Here is where the war cycle needs the assistance of Ludwig Dehio's classic study demonstrating how the European balance of power has shifted profoundly once a century. From this perspective, some of history's bloodiest wars (like the Thirty Years' War or World War I) do not classify as cycle ending because they did not replace the old order with something fundamentally new".

Although, it could of course be argued that WWI was part of a cycle ending Crisis, just not by itself the cycle ending war, as well as that the Thirty Years' War at least resulted in the complete political disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

At which exact point did recent years begin to resemble the 1850s?

Well to use apples to apples evernts as guides I would say that there is direct correlation between the crash of 1857 and the crash of 2008. If pressed I would guess that the 2008 crash was a bit more severe. If for no other reason than the fact that much of America was still agrarian in the 1850's and more insulated from the national/global economy.

I'll go further and propose that the Dred Scott decision may be the Citizens United of its era. Of course we wont be able to test that idea until we see if Citizens United stands long tern as Dead Scott did not.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Prozac Nation 90's were nothing like the 20's. The 80's were like the 20's.

The angst-ridden "Gen X" (in quotes for a reason) culture has its analogy in the "Lost Generation". The Great Gatsby is a good example of Nomad art that resembles Xer art in the 90s. The gangsters of the Prohibition era have their analogy in the gangsta rap of the 90s. All of that going on in tandem with a booming economy and a technological explosion. Then it all came to a screeching halt on 9/11. The fact that some of it lingered means nothing, unless you want to make the Unraveling (or the Awakening) 30 years long. If the Unraveling started in the late 80s-early 90s, then it could have ended in 2008. But that means the Awakening lasted 25-30 years.

The earliest Millenials turned 18 in 2000. It all lines up. The only thing that doesn't line up is a left wing fantasy repeat of the 1930s, FDR and the New Deal. Which is why this board is so resistant to the obvious reality that the 4T started in 2000/2001. If there is any validity to S&H at all, which there may not be.

All of these things happened in a two year window:

1. The Y2K scare.
2. The crash of the .com bubble.
3. Bush v. Gore election, decided by the courts.
4. 9/11.

The 1980s and 1990s very clearly (to those who remember both) represent one era, marked by economic expansion, relative peace internationally, and growing American influence. The 00s and this new decade clearly represent another, marked by chaos, instability, and economic disaster. The farther you get from this forum and the endless games of mulling minutiae to come up with some new twist on the same subject, the clearer it is that what I've said is true.

That said, there are never perfect 1-to-1 analogies. There is no real analogy for WWI in this saeculum, either in the Awakening or the Unraveling. The post-9/11 wars are too late, Viet Nam is too early, and the first Persian Gulf War, while timed correctly, is too insignificant. However, that war does have the virtue of being a foreshadowing of the later war in Iraq, as WWI foreshadowed WWII.