Preface: It is my sincere hope that this thread will become entertaining rather than topical.
But I'm considering some possibilities raised by Flat 58 on this thread.

Thanks Tony, you're making me think--again. :

Now to the point.
If we suppose that 911 is the catalyzing event for the 4T, then it is the first drop in the cascade.
Granted, it has been a slow motion cascade, but every 4T is different.
It could well be that mitigating actions have delayed the final onslaught of the dulge.
Or maybe not.
But if the 4T continues on a 3 to 5 year cycle of shocks, the next next one should happen between 2016 and 2018.
So taking that as a starting point, here's what may happen sequencely depending on the year of the drop.

2016


2013-Second Boston massacre.
2014-Jingoistic candidates, perhaps from both parties, do better than expected in the November midterms.
2015-The military-industrial complex wing of the Democratic party unifies behind a Hillary* candidacy.
Also in 2015 the Republican neocons in alliance with their party's MIC unifies behind a candidate. They may, or may not, keep it in the family.
2016-For all practical purposes, relating to issues of war and peace, it doesn't matter which "royal family" wins the 2016 presidential election. As both are hellbent on a return to militancy.

2017
2013-Second Boston massacre.
2014-Jingoistic candidates, perhaps from both parties, do better than expected in the November midterms.
2015-The military-industrial complex wing of the Democratic party unifies behind a candidacy.
Also in 2015 the Republican neocons in alliance with their party's MIC unifies behind a candidate. They may, if they need to, swing for the fences. **
2016-For all practical purposes relating to issues of war and peace it doesn't matter which " family" wins the 2016 presidential election. As both are hellbent on a return to militancy.
2017-Under new President G. Champ Pretender III, whatever SNAFU's available to generate jingoistic heat are driven into overdrive and turn into FUBARs.



2018
2013-Second Boston massacre.
2014-Jingoistic candidates, perhaps from both parties, do better than expected in the November midterms.
2015-The military-industrial complex wing of the Democratic party unifies behind a candidacy.
Also in 2015 the Republican neocons in alliance with their party's MIC unifies behind a candidate. They may, or may not, rock around the clock.
2016-For all practical purposes relating to issues of war and peace it doesn't matter which "market tested unit" wins the 2016 presidential election. As both are hellbent on a return to militancy.
2017-Under new President G. Champ Pretender III, whatever SNAFU's available to generate jingoistic heat are driven into overdrive and turn into FUBARs.
2018-We slam into the next step on our downward decent and President Pretender begins to look like a one termer for myriad reasons.
The president's party gets one of the greatest, 4T sized if you will, "clobberings" in history in the November midterms.
But in terms of actual policy changes, it might not matter too much.

Turnings are based on moods and above you have 3 possible, to use the German word for it, gestalts, depending on when the next shock hits.
(Fill in the blanks as you will. : )






*Or if Hillary declines, some other corporate wing Democrat. This scenario begins with the assumption that the populist and allied "occupy" groups have no realistic chance to effectively challenge the course of events through 2018.
**Swinging for the fences will not preclude libertarian interventionalism.--Don't scoff pro libertarian readers. Remember, Obama started out as a change candidate too.

My bet is the next economic leg down will be a government debt crisis that starts in Europe or Asia and spreads worldwide. It will dwarf the 2008 one, and will happen within the next three years. Being a sovereign currency issuer, we will not run out of money, but the economic impact will be big. Depending on which wing of the Empire party takes control in 2016, we could end up in either an aggravated austerity environment or a stagflationary one. My bet is Hillary (or some suitable substitute) in 2016, and an economic backdrop that looks like the 70s on steroids. Yields on Treasuries are going to go up, and Krugman et al will blame it on China. China is going to crash very soon when their shadow banking sector blows up, and they are going to have to try and bailout their municipal and local governments, who rely on the shadow banking sector for financing. They could implode, like the Soviet Union, stagnate like Japan, or push outward, hard. My bet is on the latter.

Nationalizations of foreign businesses and a strong bid to INCREASE the value of their currency in order to reduce inflation and expand their purchasing power are likely. THe EU will implode. Tensions on the Korean peninsula and revanchism by various Asian powers in the East and South China seas will provide the excuse to kick the US "pivot to Asia" into overdrive. Minor naval clashes will occur. Our withdrawal from Afghanistan will eliminate our need to suck up to Pakistan, while the Iran issue could grow more inflamed if their upcoming 2T doesn't topple the government and/or Israel does something. The Arab world will continue to come apart at the seams. Jordan will be the next domino to fall. Ukraine will come apart in the next 10 years, split between Catholic Ukrainian speakers and Orthodox Russian speakers (with Orthodox Ukrainian speakers in the middle), and Russia will get involved. Nationalist politicians like Narendra Modi and Toru Hashimoto will gain power in the next couple of election cycles. By the end of the decade, the world will be roughly divided between two feuding camps (Anglosphere/Japan/SK/India/Israel vs China/Russia/NK?/Iran/Pakistan/Islamic militants) amid widening chaos in the rest of the world. These camps will reflect the triumph momentary convergence of interests over the deeper incompatibility of their agendas.

A crisis will occur sometime between 2020 and 2025. Nuclear weapons may be used, but I feel a wider WWIII between the principals will probably be avoided. It'll be more of a "bloody borders" type of thing.

Or I could need to adjust my meds.

The "bloody borders" scenario suggests war across multiple fault lines, which suggests fragmented violence-closer to all against all than between two alliances..

Originally Posted by TimWalker

The "bloody borders" scenario suggests war across multiple fault lines, which suggests fragmented violence-closer to all against all than between two alliances..

Which goes with my thesis that this is going to be a messy couple of turnings. Conflicts will break out on some of the following fault lines:

NK/SK
Japan/China
US/China
Taiwan/China
Israel/Arabs
Turks/Kurds
Israel - US - Gulf States (GCC) / Iran
Greeks (Golden Dawn) / Turks
Russia/FSU
India/Pakistan

My guess is it won't be a single unified AxisvsAllies bit so much as a linked series of regional conflicts with overlapping participants. You could end up with awkward bits like US troops based out of Arab countries in the Persian Gulf attacking/occupying Iran while Israel is fighting Arab militants in Egypt and the Levant, or Japanese intervention in Asian conflicts like NK/SK arousing nationalist memories of WWII amongst nominal "allies".This would lend itself to a "mixed" outcome, where some participants could "win" and some "lose", even if they're on the same "side".

Combine this with potential civil wars in countries like Thailand and Burma along with rising xenophobia in Western Europe and it will probably seem less like a war than an endless series of meaningless atrocities. Historians will probably record it as a "Time of Troubles", rather than WWIII.

"Time of Troubles" may be a good place holder name.

My guess is that by the end of this year we'll be in pretty brutal economic turmoil, and it either starts here or in the US or in Europe, but it severely hinders purchasing power in that territory of the economic core.

Corresponding producer nations, like China, will attempt to raise prices for labor to make up some of their losses, cascading economic failure onto whichever side of the core didn't get clubbed first.

As for a big "Boston Massacre" style inciding event, I think it'll be either in 2014 or 15, when all the troops have returned. I don't expect a genuine article revolution as much as a rather savage political take over with some hot spots, then a rearchitecture of the government in one or another. However, that will be closer to 2020.

Between now and 2020, I expect to see a new party emerge that represents 4T values. Even if it comes prior to 2016, I don't expect to see it in power until 2020, though it may may significant gains in 2018, much like the Democrats swept 2006 elections.

Originally Posted by Kepi

My guess is that by the end of this year we'll be in pretty brutal economic turmoil, and it either starts here or in the US or in Europe, but it severely hinders purchasing power in that territory of the economic core.

Sequester is having an effect in slowing down the recovery. I expect, overall, that the weak recovery will continue. Later in the decade new green and tech industries will stimulate the economy, and increasing Democratic power will reduce austerity. I still expect some stresses late in the decade because most of the underlying structural problems will remain in place, so the economy will remain vulnerable to down cycles.

Corresponding producer nations, like China, will attempt to raise prices for labor to make up some of their losses, cascading economic failure onto whichever side of the core didn't get clubbed first.

Labor costs will be rising everywhere in the 2nd/3rd world. Over the long-term that will mean higher prices in America, but this will be gradual. It's possible inflation could return due to this, and that's when the US debt will start to hurt us because of rising interest rates. Only government reform can deal with this situation, by reducing the current hogging of money and gambling by the rich, and dealing with the structural problems in the economy like poor education and automation.

But I doubt boom times and growth will ever return. We need to adjust our lifestyles and expectations accordingly. The silver lining to that is that inflation and interest rates should remain fairly low if growth remains low.

As for a big "Boston Massacre" style inciting event, I think it'll be either in 2014 or 15, when all the troops have returned. I don't expect a genuine article revolution as much as a rather savage political take over with some hot spots, then a rearchitecture of the government in one or another. However, that will be closer to 2020.

Intervention by the US in another hot spot, probably Syria, is likely in 2013-2014. It will be small scale and limited. Look for a fairly-benevolent start to it this July. Another major war or several of them will break out in Dec.2020. The US will not be involved until at least 2025.

Between now and 2020, I expect to see a new party emerge that represents 4T values. Even if it comes prior to 2016, I don't expect to see it in power until 2020, though it may may significant gains in 2018, much like the Democrats swept 2006 elections.

I think it will take longer, unfortunately. It's possible we could see the end of duopoly by the time the Crisis ends. That does not mean a new party will actually take power. It could be a coalition. But I think Democrats increasing in power in the next few election cycles will generally be a good thing. Democrats are more amenable than Republicans to pressure from below. It's pressure from the people that will be where change has to come.

Oh what joy to look forward to.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Sequester is having an effect in slowing down the recovery. I expect, overall, that the weak recovery will continue. Later in the decade new green and tech industries will stimulate the economy, and increasing Democratic power will reduce austerity. I still expect some stresses late in the decade because most of the underlying structural problems will remain in place, so the economy will remain vulnerable to down cycles.

Labor costs will be rising everywhere in the 2nd/3rd world. Over the long-term that will mean higher prices in America, but this will be gradual. It's possible inflation could return due to this, and that's when the US debt will start to hurt us because of rising interest rates. Only government reform can deal with this situation, by reducing the current hogging of money and gambling by the rich, and dealing with the structural problems in the economy like poor education and automation.

But I doubt boom times and growth will ever return. We need to adjust our lifestyles and expectations accordingly. The silver lining to that is that inflation and interest rates should remain fairly low if growth remains low.

Intervention by the US in another hot spot, probably Syria, is likely in 2013-2014. It will be small scale and limited. Look for a fairly-benevolent start to it this July. Another major war or several of them will break out in Dec.2020. The US will not be involved until at least 2025.

I think it will take longer, unfortunately. It's possible we could see the end of duopoly by the time the Crisis ends. That does not mean a new party will actually take power. It could be a coalition. But I think Democrats increasing in power in the next few election cycles will generally be a good thing. Democrats are more amenable than Republicans to pressure from below. It's pressure from the people that will be where change has to come.

Bwahahahahahaha! "Slow down on recovery?" That implies there's been a recovery. "Recovery" is what the media says because their afraid this is all a consumer confidence issue. Recovery he says... Hahahahahahahahaha!

After having occupied a plateau since 2005, worldwide oil supply will start to dwindle sometime past 2017, so yeah, "the next step down" is in the wings to be sure. Won't have much to do with politics per se however, even though every country in Euro-American civilization indeed seems to be stuck with worthless establishment leadership, whatever the political colours.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

After having occupied a plateau since 2005, worldwide oil supply will start to dwindle sometime past 2017, so yeah, "the next step down" is in the wings to be sure. Won't have much to do with politics per se however, even though every country in Euro-American civilization indeed seems to be stuck with worthless establishment leadership, whatever the political colours.

You think it'll last all the way to 2017? I can't help but feel that depletion rates on existing production (especially older fields and "tight" oil/gas plays) and oscillating prices will really fuck with the ability of oil producers to deliver sooner rather than later. There's also the export-land model to consider. Gross production means a lot less than net exports, particularly for oil importers.

Peak oil is one of the things I think will be driving 70s style stagflation later in the decade, that and rising Asian (and developing world more broadly) consumption.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

You think it'll last all the way to 2017? I can't help but feel that depletion rates on existing production (especially older fields and "tight" oil/gas plays) and oscillating prices will really fuck with the ability of oil producers to deliver sooner rather than later. There's also the export-land model to consider. Gross production means a lot less than net exports, particularly for oil importers.

Peak oil is one of the things I think will be driving 70s style stagflation later in the decade, that and rising Asian (and developing world more broadly) consumption.

Yes, 2017 give or take. Personally, I think more likely give. For instance, US fracking and shale gas plays will hold the line for a while, and even considered the fact that these are indeed rapid depletion ventures, there will be a few years until they reach their own Peak Oil moment, so to speak.

I dunno, man. A lot of those fracking plays are producing beneath the cost of production, while Wall street has been pimping them for all they are worth to anyone who will listen. Smells like a bubble to me.

Who knows, bubbles always last longer than you think, until they don't. We'll see.

How many bubbles before people wise up?

Bloody Borders-Samuel Huntington had a somewhat similar scenario in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. The winners in his scenario? The countries that managed to stay out of it.

Parts of Latin America look like they're finally getting a break. Hopefully they won't screw it up in their next Awakening.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Bloody Borders-Samuel Huntington had a somewhat similar scenario in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. The winners in his scenario? The countries that managed to stay out of it.

Curiously, I'm reading The Clash of Civilizations right now. It's fascinating to see how almost 100 percent correct Huntington's assumptions were back in the mid 90's and how vastly mistaken all variants on the "one world order" of democracy and multiculturalism/westernization/free market globalism have turned out in practice. One of the few things he seems to miss from his 90's vantage point however, is the hugely important phenomenon of massive MENA migration into Europe and its implications on the future.
A big problem, at least in my part of Europe, is that the competitive multi-civilizational paradigm he introduced has failed to take root among the established politico-cultural elite. Therefore, every analysis and official policy on cultural conflict and migration on part of the present PC regime is bound to fail miserably. This also seems to have seasonal roots. People born into the snug and well ordered world of the mid 20th century, of WWII, the 40's and 50's, seem often positively unable to exchange their Cold War paradigm of ideological dualism and north-south material inequality, where ethnicity, culture and civilization was deemed to have no importance at all (but which in the last analysis was simply hiding a much more fundamental and deeper reality of civilizational divides) for a more apt, realistic and updated view of the world.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

I dunno, man. A lot of those fracking plays are producing beneath the cost of production, while Wall street has been pimping them for all they are worth to anyone who will listen. Smells like a bubble to me.

Who knows, bubbles always last longer than you think, until they don't. We'll see.

Yes, there is most likely a pump and dump dimension to this, I agree.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Curiously, I'm reading The Clash of Civilizations right now. It's fascinating to see how almost 100 percent correct Huntington's assumptions were back in the mid 90's and how vastly mistaken all variants on the "one world order" of democracy and multiculturalism/westernization/free market globalism have turned out in practice. One of the few things he seems to miss from his 90's vantage point however, is the hugely important phenomenon of massive MENA migration into Europe and its implications on the future.
A big problem, at least in my part of Europe, is that the competitive multi-civilizational paradigm he introduced has failed to take root among the established politico-cultural elite. Therefore, every analysis and official policy on cultural conflict and migration on part of the present PC regime is bound to fail miserably. This also seems to have seasonal roots. People born into the snug and well ordered world of the mid 20th century, of WWII, the 40's and 50's, seem often positively unable to exchange their Cold War paradigm of ideological dualism and north-south material inequality, where ethnicity, culture and civilization was deemed to have no importance at all (but which in the last analysis was simply hiding a much more fundamental and deeper reality of civilizational divides) for a more apt, realistic and updated view of the world.

The massive migration flows are likely to end relatively soon. MENA birthrates have been dropping rapidly for years. The youth bulge will work its way into middle age by the end of the 4T. Say, 2030. Sub-Saharan Africa will still have population surpluses, but given you guys' economic and political trajectory I doubt there will be much of an open door for them. I don't think the EU is going to last much longer in its present configuration, and the growth of fringe parties on the margins will likely continue. Given the ideological decline of Christian Democrat style parties, nationalists will probably take their place.

Just my two cents.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

A big problem, at least in my part of Europe, is that the competitive multi-civilizational paradigm he introduced has failed to take root among the established politico-cultural elite. Therefore, every analysis and official policy on cultural conflict and migration on part of the present PC regime is bound to fail miserably. This also seems to have seasonal roots. People born into the snug and well ordered world of the mid 20th century, of WWII, the 40's and 50's, seem often positively unable to exchange their Cold War paradigm of ideological dualism and north-south material inequality, where ethnicity, culture and civilization was deemed to have no importance at all (but which in the last analysis was simply hiding a much more fundamental and deeper reality of civilizational divides) for a more apt, realistic and updated view of the world.

In general, the centuries long domination of the world by the West...helped to create this illusion. This domination is now fading. As I have posted to other threads, we will see a repudiation of Western values as nonWestern societies gain economic, military, and political clout. Westerners who prize cosmopolitanism will increasingly find that these societies will overthrow their One World assumptions.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

The massive migration flows are likely to end relatively soon. MENA birthrates have been dropping rapidly for years. The youth bulge will work its way into middle age by the end of the 4T. Say, 2030. Sub-Saharan Africa will still have population surpluses, but given you guys' economic and political trajectory I doubt there will be much of an open door for them. I don't think the EU is going to last much longer in its present configuration, and the growth of fringe parties on the margins will likely continue. Given the ideological decline of Christian Democrat style parties, nationalists will probably take their place.

Just my two cents.

I most sincerely hope everything you bring up will come to pass. Otherwise, you can essentially kiss the eastern half of Euro-American civilization goodbye. For instance, if present trends are not checked, including the negative demographical growth of ethnic Europeans and the high population growth of immigrants, "white Britons" will become a minority in the UK by 2066 (David Coleman, Oxford). The most common name of infant boys in cities like Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Haag and Utrecht (as in the Swedish city of Malmoe) are already variants of Muhammed and 20% of the entire population in the EU will be Muslim in 2050. Consider that there are several countries, unlike those of classical western Europe - like France, Britain, The Netherlands and Germany - that have almost no immigration at all, and you'll get a handful of important countries which similar to Britain will pass the 50 percent threshold around mid century.
About 70 percent of all immigrants to the EU are Muslim. In Muslim civilization, according to Huntington and others, respect or acknowledgement of the European concept of inherent tradition, nations and nation states is almost non-existent. The important units are clan/extended family, religion and empire, which by default means Muslim state leadership in order not to live in an affront to God (Dar al-Harb). What happens when a Muslim population, including such that for long periods might well have appeared mainly secular, suddenly approaches a substantial fraction or majority of the population?
I don't know about you Americans, but if I was from the US, I would prefer to to able to visit a French Paris also in the future.

Lets see where this would leave us: Huge and growing mainly public benefit dependent foreign population + Extended period of economical contraction due to several resource related peaks and slides (the end of growth) = Massive ethnically based conflict, finally resolved into foreign population entering a state of peonship on huge latifundiae as civilization reverts to a state of spectacularly diminished world trade, a more local state of production and increased need for self reliance?

Defensive Demographics thread.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

In general, the centuries long domination of the world by the West...helped to create this illusion. This domination is now fading. As I have posted to other threads, we will see a repudiation of Western values as nonWestern societies gain economic, military, and political clout. Westerners who prize cosmopolitanism will increasingly find that these societies will overthrow their One World assumptions.

Exactly. Now, if only that Hegelian pendelum might swing back full force on European civilization causing certain spiritual consequences of our own.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

In general, the centuries long domination of the world by the West...helped to create this illusion. This domination is now fading. As I have posted to other threads, we will see a repudiation of Western values as nonWestern societies gain economic, military, and political clout. Westerners who prize cosmopolitanism will increasingly find that these societies will overthrow their One World assumptions.

Quite the opposite. Western societies promoted The West as imperial overlord, and competed with each other to be the biggest overlord. That was the old 500-year era that ended with the world wars. The League of Nations and United Nations is the foundation of the succeeding era. Now we are moving toward a world where all culture and ethnic groups are valued and contribute to one cosmopolitan whole. Competition is the old paradigm; cosmopolitanism is the new. At the same time, we need to rein in new corporate imperialist schemes that use globalization as a way to create a new world domination by a few companies. Real cosmopolitanism means local economies and cultures that thrive.

21st century Western units, in increasing size: nation-state, bloc, and a civilization wide association. Or perhaps: nation-state, civilization-wide association. With at least four different power centers (Germany, France, UK, USA) this civilizational association would likely be held together by external pressures; it would necessarily be very loose.