Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

...I hit the Laurentian Plateau with my snowplow this morning. It didn't move very much. :?

Not to be confused with another Laurentian Plateau that bubbles away nostalgically on PBS every Saturday night.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Not to be confused with another Laurentian Plateau that bubbles away nostalgically on PBS every Saturday night.

That's a stretch, although I find the pun highly amusing, since I used to watch the shows on occasion.

The only thing that irks me is that I had a hard time identifying what time period the shows were taped. It seems like all was a grand retrospective done in that strange kitschy 70s style, perhaps early 70s.

Plus I couldn't stand the music played or sung most of the time, it's too "uppity" I believe, especially that god-awful organ . . .

But I shouldn't speak so soon for I would be afraid when the time comes when bands cover the songs I grew up with and more with this horrid gloss that Welk is reknowned for doing to songs from even back to Victorian Era (the gay 90s, which weren't as idyllic as one in the 50s 60s and 70s would wish it to be).

Anyways, I would really love to be a participant in the new High whenever that comes around.

If there is one thing that needs doing, it is to cease making matters complicated beyond control. Lots of fluff and other flim-flam needs tossing out so the bare essentials and core structures are obviated and built upon.

Unfortunately, it takes time and the death of older generations to allow that breathing room to occur. I really would like it to show my mentors and forebears the kind of world I have helped to create and maintain.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Arkham:

All of that is interesting, but beside the point. The money supply isn't the supply of money that is leant out, but the amount of money that is available to lend out. (Even "fiat" money is limited, although the limits are self-imposed in order to avoid a wild inflationary spiral.) If all loans, consumer, business, and government, were paid back, the amount of money available to lend out -- and hence the money supply -- would be enormous. Interest rates would plummet, as lenders attempted to push money out their doors.

No, the money supply is the quantity of money available within the economy to purchase goods and services, i.e., the amount of circulating money, or money that can be readily spent. This supply increases when loans are issued and decreases when they are repaid.

If that money weren't re-borrowed and invested, then of course we would have a disastrous recession. Even the process of paying it back, which would remove money from circulation, would likely depress the economy. But that's not because the money supply would contract; just the opposite.

There would be a recession because of a deflationary adjustment. With less money in circulation, prices must decline because there are otherwise not enough dollars to spend on all available goods and services. Companies find themselves burdened with overstock they can only move at a loss, which curtails further production, cuts profits, and induces layoffs. The reduction in consumer demand correspondingly leads to further deflation, as the unemployed hoard what money they have instead of circulating it freely.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by POTUS Diffin

A few of my predictions:

Politicians will fail to deal with an emerging crisis, instead focusing on petty partisan agendas and staying in power. People will continue to lose faith in their leaders.

The economy will suffer, as outsourcing, loss of industries, etc. takes its toll on the US.

Africa and the Middle East will continue to be ravaged by disease, war, fundamentalism and terrorism.

India will likely develop more and become a major world power.

China will likely become a Fascist state, as the government continues to become more capitalist but represses efforts to liberalize society.

The US may very well become a de-facto Corporate Dictatorship and/or Corporate One-party state, as more privacy is lost, companies continue to gain influence, and the corporate-state will gradually eliminate all dissent in the media. Most Millennials probably won?t care as long as their lives aren?t directly affected.

The Gay Rights movement may turn ugly, as Gay Marriage continues to create a homophobic reaction.

South America may stabilize somewhat, though some areas such as Colombia or Venezuela will likely continue to be unstable.

Environmental problems such as desertification, over-fishing, etc. will continue to worsen.

Hybrid cars will gradually become popular.

Terrorism will continue to be a major problem.

The European Union will gradually become an actual nation, with each nation basically becoming a satellite-state to one major nation or group that will grab power within that organization.

Relations between the US and Canada, Europe, etc. will continue to sour.

Europe, Japan, etc. will all have serious aging problems.

Are these your predictions for the next high or for the upcoming crisis?????

The crisis. I'm wondering whether or not people are going to make it past that stage...

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Arkham:

All of that is interesting, but beside the point. The money supply isn't the supply of money that is leant out, but the amount of money that is available to lend out. (Even "fiat" money is limited, although the limits are self-imposed in order to avoid a wild inflationary spiral.) If all loans, consumer, business, and government, were paid back, the amount of money available to lend out -- and hence the money supply -- would be enormous. Interest rates would plummet, as lenders attempted to push money out their doors.

If that money weren't re-borrowed and invested, then of course we would have a disastrous recession. Even the process of paying it back, which would remove money from circulation, would likely depress the economy. But that's not because the money supply would contract; just the opposite.

Brian, Arkham is right that lending increases the money supply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

Originally Posted by Andy '85

...Anyways, I would really love to be a participant in the new High whenever that comes around...

I also hope you get to participate, Andy. However, I was a teenager on into my twenties during the last High, and I often wonder if it really was that great. It came with a naging tension all its own, tried to cram us all into Hero models, while the draft lingered on. I went for it for a while--football, crewcut, frat, and all--and then I choked on it like it was industrial waste. The Organization Man met Silent Spring, and I started to question much of it. The Kennedy assination and Rachel Carson put an end to High times, as you know. But if you want apple pie, baseball, and Chevrolet, I'm sure the next High will be happy to sell it to you.

--Croaker

Thanks, Mike, it appears I was misusing the term "money supply." I still have a problem with monetarist explanations of economic outcomes. It strikes me as hocus-pocus. Here's an example, again from Arkham:

The problem arises when interest is computed. The money to repay interest is not created with the principle of the loan, and therefore the debt can only be serviced by shifting it onto someone else, not by eliminating it outright.

Money in a "fiat" system is supposed to represent value of real goods and services in the economy. The money supply is dovetailed, ideally, to this "value supply." (Obviously it never matches it perfectly.) If a loan is used to invest successfully in productive enterprises, the growth in value this represents should account for the repayment of interest without "shifting it onto someone else." Or am I missing something here?

Originally Posted by Croakmore

But if you want apple pie, baseball, and Chevrolet, I'm sure the next High will be happy to sell it to you.

--Croaker

Not exactly what I have in mind. Depends on how I make of it. And your assessment is good warning. The only difference is that your youth centered around a High so your experiences and reaction are valid for your age and timeframe. I probably will be around my late 30s when the next 1st turning comes around, so I would be less inclined to be rocked by the era than the youth of the future would probably be.

I believe the next High should not reflect the 1950s.

Perhaps something more akin to the 1870s would be more like it, except for the Jim Crow, voting rackets, and other things that marred an otherwise interesting (though most overlooked) High period.

If the next High is about honesty, I'm all for it.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

If the next High is about honesty, I'm all for it.

Honesty . . . is such a lonely word . . .

Well, sometimes honesty can become embarrasing. :?

For the next high: I hope that our population is still growing at a good pace... with all our land we can afford it.

I hope public transit is more widely used. (but once the awakening comes, I think I'll drive myself - safety reasons. Crime will go up and I'll be in the unliked hero generation)

I hope that the trend towards more townhomes and less single family homes doesn't continue. The problem is cost. I hope (with no ill will towards anyone) that before 2010 the real estate market collapses... houses cost too much.

I hope that we get less small developments (i.e. new neighborhoods of a suburb) and more brand new suburbs (i.e. New Levittown).

There's more stuff I want... I can't think of them now.

Andy:

I believe the next High should not reflect the 1950s.

Yes and no. The culture of America has changed because of this saeculum's Awakening and there's no reversing that, but a return to some aspects of the '50s is likely. Take the 1950s and

Add: a much more energy- and resource-efficient economy, burning little or no oil or other fossil fuels; a lot more institutionalized green practices in general; international trade organizations that serve the goals of fair labor practices and environmental protection, not just corporate profits, and hence prompt no protests; stronger international cooperative organizations in general; a smaller U.S. military with greater connections to allied military forces; an international peacekeeping organization with real teeth, most likely not part of the U.N. (which may even be gone); and a self-identification as an integral and crucial part of the globe; and

Subtract: the 1950s' racism, sexism, and jingoism.

I would like to say subtract the red-baiting as well, but if we're true to the saecular form it will be present in a different form -- not Communists but something else, some way of tarring and feathering progressives that will allow conservatives to take power and bring the reform era to a halt for a while.

If things go even reasonably well, we should have a much stronger economy with the problems of this one more or less fixed, and a new sense of identification between the individual and the nation (or even the international structure of which the nation is a part). We should have government, business, and other institutions that work well. And the values regime evolved by my generation should begin to seem stale and slightly irrelevant, especially as we near the High's end.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

For the next high: I hope that our population is still growing at a good pace... with all our land we can afford it.

No, we can't. That land isn't empty; it's occupied by the footprints of people living in the crowded cities.

I hope public transit is more widely used. (but once the awakening comes, I think I'll drive myself - safety reasons. Crime will go up and I'll be in the unliked hero generation)

It doesn't really work like that. Or at least, it didn't in the last Awakening. Most victims of Boomer crime and violence were other Boomers, and most of the exceptions to that rule were Xers.

I can't really even agree that the GIs were "disliked." (Well, some of them. LBJ and Nixon definitely come to mind.) It was more like a struggle to be understood by these people we mostly admired, but couldn't, and shouldn't, emulate. What was aggravating was the tendency to look at the situation we faced in terms of their own life struggles, when they didn't really fit and in some cases were the exact opposite.

Anyway, I doubt you'll be singled out for potshots just on account of your age. You should be a lot safer than most of the new Prophets.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

For the next high: I hope that our population is still growing at a good pace... with all our land we can afford it.

No, we can't. That land isn't empty; it's occupied by the footprints of people living in the crowded cities.

I hope public transit is more widely used. (but once the awakening comes, I think I'll drive myself - safety reasons. Crime will go up and I'll be in the unliked hero generation)

It doesn't really work like that. Or at least, it didn't in the last Awakening. Most victims of Boomer crime and violence were other Boomers, and most of the exceptions to that rule were Xers.

I can't really even agree that the GIs were "disliked." (Well, some of them. LBJ and Nixon definitely come to mind.) It was more like a struggle to be understood by these people we mostly admired, but couldn't, and shouldn't, emulate. What was aggravating was the tendency to look at the situation we faced in terms of their own life struggles, when they didn't really fit and in some cases were the exact opposite.

Anyway, I doubt you'll be singled out for potshots just on account of your age. You should be a lot safer than most of the new Prophets.

How do we know, though, that the 2040-60 Awakening will be marked by high levels of crime and violence??? Because the last one was? That's alot like how many of us believe that We must still Be 3T because the Second Great Depression hasn't started yet (or has it???). We can't assume that the next Awakening will be a rerun of the last, any more than we can that this Crisis will duplicate the 1930s and 40s.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Anyway, I doubt you'll be singled out for potshots just on account of your age. You should be a lot safer than most of the new Prophets.

Well, being familiar with the theory, it certainly could be easier to understand the new Prophets. Perhaps I can go into the 2T not being such a "square" or "cube" or whatever the hell they'll call us.

As for the empty space thing: I never said that there was empty space. I know our rural areas still have highways and towns and such. I'm just saying that we have so much farmland that if our population increases we can still feed ourselves. Do you know how much food gets thrown away because no one buys it? It happens at work all the time. No one buys the salad on time, or the lettuce on time, or something, so it has to get thrown away. So, basically we have a surplus. Of course, I'm not an agricultural economist, so what do I know?

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Anyway, I doubt you'll be singled out for potshots just on account of your age. You should be a lot safer than most of the new Prophets.

Well, being familiar with the theory, it certainly could be easier to understand the new Prophets. Perhaps I can go into the 2T not being such a "square" or "cube" or whatever the hell they'll call us.

As for the empty space thing: I never said that there was empty space. I know our rural areas still have highways and towns and such. I'm just saying that we have so much farmland that if our population increases we can still feed ourselves. Do you know how much food gets thrown away because no one buys it? It happens at work all the time. No one buys the salad on time, or the lettuce on time, or something, so it has to get thrown away. So, basically we have a surplus. Of course, I'm not an agricultural economist, so what do I know?

The solution, it seems, will be to both produce and consume more food (and possibly other goods) locally. That way less gets wasted.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

[
The solution, it seems, will be to both produce and consume more food (and possibly other goods) locally. That way less gets wasted.

And it tastes much better!

Living on the East coast, I never buy peaches from California because they arrive rock hard and turn to mush, whereas the local (or semi-local) ones from the Carolinas turn lovely and juicy and succulent.

Alex:

All I'm saying is that you're unlikely to be in danger of physical attack, and there won't be a need to avoid public transportation. Our relations with the GIs were not as simple as they might look from a distance; human interactions never are. There are many Awakening roles for Heros, who are, after all, in their full political and civic power at that time, or at least in the first half. LBJ and Nixon were its grand civic architects and its victims, Dr. Spock (and an awful lot of progressive GIs, especially women) were its mentors, and Timothy Leary was its Pied Piper. 8) Your role is your choice.

Getting back to the High, one of the things that strikes me in memory is the degree to which authority figures were innocently trusted. We were raised to believe in the government, in the benevolence and honor of the police, and basically that the American Dream of freedom had been perfectly realized. That's why it came as such a shock when Kennedy was assassinated. Who in the world could even dream of shooting the president? Of course, we knew (I'm speaking from a grade-school perspective, because that's where I was at the time) that Lincoln had been assassinated, but that was way back in an unreal time. That sort of thing wasn't supposed to happen now!

And I really think that all this everything-is-perfect and authority-is-benign stuff was to some extent a deliberate lie. Those putting it out knew better. But it was a lie that created, for a while, a peaceful, orderly, and prosperous society, in which remaining problems were deferred so that the nation could heal, and ready itself for the next storm. That's my perspective on the American High. Kevin, who is both younger and black, may have a different one.

Something like it should be expected post-Crisis this time. But of course, it will include the changes from the last Awakening and also from this saeculum's 4T. It will feel similar, but many details will be different.

About population: that's one of my bugbears, so bear with me. We can produce way more than enough food for our population now, but have you considered how much of that is dependent on cheap oil? Oil powers the farm machinery and the pumps for irrigation. Oil produces the fertilizers and drives the produce trucks to market. What happens to American agriculture when the cheap oil is gone, which it will be in about another five or six years? And: although some parts of the country get abundant rainfall, other parts -- including some of the most productive grainlands -- are dependent on irrigation from aquifers that are being depleted and drawn down. What happens when we run out of fresh water in those areas?

Actually, America's population is growing today only because of immigration. And a lot of the world is in far worse shape than we are. We really should see quite a significant population decrease worldwide this Crisis. Whether America's population will shrink is more problematic, but I wouldn't hope for continued pop growth in the High. If it's there, then we will have failed.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

[
The solution, it seems, will be to both produce and consume more food (and possibly other goods) locally. That way less gets wasted.

And it tastes much better!

Living on the East coast, I never buy peaches from California because they arrive rock hard and turn to mush, whereas the local (or semi-local) ones from the Carolinas turn lovely and juicy and succulent.

Living in the middle of the country, most of the stuff we get is pretty fresh. Peaches are a different matter though: they don't last very long. The problem is that none of the peach-producing places in the country are very close (but none are very far either). But things like Apples and Oranges can come from New Zealand and they look normal.

The problem with local production, of course, is the seasons. In order for such a concept to be feasible, we'd need giant greenhouses everywhere (an infeasible idea in itself).

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Alex:

Getting back to the High, one of the things that strikes me in memory is the degree to which authority figures were innocently trusted. We were raised to believe in the government, in the benevolence and honor of the police, and basically that the American Dream of freedom had been perfectly realized. That's why it came as such a shock when Kennedy was assassinated. Who in the world could even dream of shooting the president? Of course, we knew (I'm speaking from a grade-school perspective, because that's where I was at the time) that Lincoln had been assassinated, but that was way back in an unreal time. That sort of thing wasn't supposed to happen now!

And I really think that all this everything-is-perfect and authority-is-benign stuff was to some extent a deliberate lie. Those putting it out knew better. But it was a lie that created, for a while, a peaceful, orderly, and prosperous society, in which remaining problems were deferred so that the nation could heal, and ready itself for the next storm. That's my perspective on the American High. Kevin, who is both younger and black, may have a different one.

Something like it should be expected post-Crisis this time. But of course, it will include the changes from the last Awakening and also from this saeculum's 4T. It will feel similar, but many details will be different.

Actually, America's population is growing today only because of immigration. And a lot of the world is in far worse shape than we are. We really should see quite a significant population decrease worldwide this Crisis. Whether America's population will shrink is more problematic, but I wouldn't hope for continued pop growth in the High. If it's there, then we will have failed.

I dunno...maybe if I was black black, and from the Deep South, I would have a much different perspective on the High-- but I'm neither, so I can't and don't. What I remember from the High, and the High-like early Awakening is my Dad going out to work in his proverbial grey flannel suit and tie every morning and announcing "honey, I'm home" (or whatever) in the evening. Moving into our first house in the predominately-Jewish Weequahic section of Newark and having the neighbors roll out the red carpet for the Parkers. The Beatles and Supremes on Ed Sullivan. The My Fair Lady, Student Prince, Bye Bye Birdie and Sound Of Music soundtracks on the record player while my (mostly) stay-at-home mom baked pies in the kitchen. And of course my attorney dad new all the cops and merchants on Bergen Street. Basically my recollection of that era is similar to yours, Brian.

Of course the Long Hot Summer Of Love trashed all that, and in a really big way. And the world hasn't seemed safe to me since. Except, perhaps, for a few brief years in the mid 1990s when I lived in my West Seattle cottage.

I agree, though, I wouldn't hope for a burgeoning population in the High either. I suppose it depends on what sort of people are left after the Crisis, though, and how it turns out. Should America emerge triumphant and victorious like in 1945 (my preferred scenario), perhaps it doesn't matter whether our population is 150 million or 400 million. OTOH, if we should end up broken and bitter like after the Civil War, better hope that mostly mild-mannered people survive, or things could get quite ugly indeed.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

[
The solution, it seems, will be to both produce and consume more food (and possibly other goods) locally. That way less gets wasted.

And it tastes much better!

Living on the East coast, I never buy peaches from California because they arrive rock hard and turn to mush, whereas the local (or semi-local) ones from the Carolinas turn lovely and juicy and succulent.

Living in the middle of the country, most of the stuff we get is pretty fresh. Peaches are a different matter though: they don't last very long. The problem is that none of the peach-producing places in the country are very close (but none are very far either). But things like Apples and Oranges can come from New Zealand and they look normal.

The problem with local production, of course, is the seasons. In order for such a concept to be feasible, we'd need giant greenhouses everywhere (an infeasible idea in itself).

No, what would happen is that unless you lived near Georgia or California you simply wouldn't get any peaches at all Ditto with Florida and oranges. But much of the country would get the best tasting apples they've ever tasted! People would learn to make do with, and enjoy, the local produce and only sample others when visiting elsewhere. It wouldn't be the end of the world.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Living on the East coast, I never buy peaches from California because they arrive rock hard and turn to mush . . ."

Like the people . . . :wink:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Andy:

I believe the next High should not reflect the 1950s.

Yes and no. The culture of America has changed because of this saeculum's Awakening and there's no reversing that, but a return to some aspects of the '50s is likely. Take the 1950s and

Add: a much more energy- and resource-efficient economy, burning little or no oil or other fossil fuels; a lot more institutionalized green practices in general; international trade organizations that serve the goals of fair labor practices and environmental protection, not just corporate profits, and hence prompt no protests; stronger international cooperative organizations in general; a smaller U.S. military with greater connections to allied military forces; an international peacekeeping organization with real teeth, most likely not part of the U.N. (which may even be gone); and a self-identification as an integral and crucial part of the globe; and

That's one possibility among a huge variety, yes. A lot of it is on the highly improbable side, though. For example, I suspect the American military will emerge in a larger form after the Crisis, barring total disaster, with greater net global power. There's sure to still be plenty of fossil fuels left, too, though we may or may not still make extensive use of them.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

For the next high: I hope that our population is still growing at a good pace... with all our land we can afford it.

No, we can't. That land isn't empty; it's occupied by the footprints of people living in the crowded cities.

Oh, we could. We could sustain a population nationally and globally considerably larger than we do now without necessarily involving greater damage to the environment. Overpopulation, in and of itself, is one of the great non-problems that people have worried about in the 20th century, because most of the troubles ascribed to overpopulation actually have other roots.

In fact, I suspect the 21st century may be marked by deliberate efforts to increase population growth, which probably won't work. Similar things happened in Classical civilization in the 1st century AD.