Oh man, I'm right with the rest of you on the sad demise of the History Channel. When I was a older kid/teenager those were some good times watching it with my dad and uncle. If both of them were alive today I think they'd also be disgusted at what it's become.

Honestly, the only TV I really watch today is football. Which means I'm one of those assholes that's raising the prices for everyone that doesn't watch sports.

Neil posted this between Christmas and New Years:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe...s-immigration/

The $1.1 trillion spending bill the Senate passed this month will fund most of the federal government through September 2015—with the notable exception of the Department of Homeland Security, whose funding expires in February. This sets up a fight with President Obama over his recent executive order on immigration—an order that itself was met, unsurprisingly, with Democratic rallying and Republican outrage. This battle largely feels like a rehashing of the same old culture-wars story we’ve heard for the past two decades. But this time, it really is different. The broader context of the debate has changed. In recent years, immigration trends have reversed direction—and the composition of immigrants is shifting in ways that most voters aren’t aware of.


Obama’s executive order is expected to affect 5.0 of the 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States. It will apply to 4 million undocumented parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, provided that the parents have lived here for at least five years. This rollout also expands the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to children who were brought to the United States by their parents before January 2010. The policy also expands visas for those who pursue STEM degrees, modifies federal immigrant detention procedures, and strengthens border security.

Originally Posted by Dan '82

Neil posted this between Christmas and New Years:

What goes up, must come down. That is even true of the population.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe...brace-failure/
Millennials Don't Want To 'Embrace Failure'

Every year, far more new entrepreneurs fail than succeed. But if you aren’t one of the lucky few, don’t despair: Failure has transformed from a source of shame into a badge of honor. Today’s CEOs and thought leaders glorify mistakes as key stepping stones to success—a sentiment that Generation X has taken to a whole new level. In a recent essay for The Washington Post, Silicon Valley venture capitalist Geoff Lewis uses the phrase “failure porn” to describe the eager repackaging of people’s lowest moments—the grislier, the better. Older leaders are urging young people to take risks when they’re most able—but this message is ill-suited for Millennials, who would much rather get started on the right foot than stumble and start again.


Much of today’s “embrace failure” rhetoric originated in the business world. The past few years have brought countless books with titles like Adapt: Why Success Always Starts with Failure and Fail Fast, Fail Often: How Losing Can Help You Win. Virtually every big-name tech executive, from Steve Jobs to Mark Zuckerberg to Jeff Bezos, has publicly touted the value of their biggest misses. Startup failure is the focus of the annual conference FailCon, which launched in 2009 and over the next four years enjoyed sellout success, adding events in other countries like Brazil, Japan, and Israel. Last year, however, FailCon’s founder cancelled the San Francisco event out of the belief that failure is now so engrained in Silicon Valley culture that a conference is unnecessary.


Along the way, this idea has broadened into an industry-agnostic rallying cry. Bestsellers like The Antidote and Antifragile argue that failure and disorder benefit individuals and institutions alike. Meanwhile, on college campuses, commencement speeches have become an opportunity for luminaries from various fields to share stories of their failures. An NPR analysis of popular speeches going back to 1774 identified “embrace failure” as the sixth-most popular theme (outranking platitudes like “be kind” and “dream big”). Of the 38 speeches with this theme, all but three were delivered after 2000—by the likes of J.K. Rowling, Oprah, and Ben Bernanke.

The result is a culture where failure is not only destigmatized but also considered empowering. Rather than move on from setbacks, people are encouraged to examine them—and those who fail repeatedly are told not to give up.


Many view this shift in perspective as a welcome change. A culture that’s open about failure, they claim, can offer those who are struggling the confidence to pick themselves up and keep going. In fact, some investors believe failure to be an asset, a sign that one can handle adversity. (Of course, there’s a paradox here: Taking the stigma out of “failure” means it’s not really failure anymore.) In addition, this mindset indicates a willingness to learn and adapt. In a recent essay, Planet Money co-host Adam Davidson argued that this quality will only grow more important at a time when major industries—like education, finance, and health care—are facing seismic disruptions and their workers must reinvent themselves.


But skeptics counter that it doesn’t help anyone to portray failure as a springboard to greatness. Rather than enabling better choices, this framing can simply enable those who have floundered to try again heedlessly when they should be more mindful of challenges. A 2009 study reported in The New Yorker found that entrepreneurs who had failed at starting businesses in the past were not much more likely to succeed in new ventures than first-timers were; around 80% of those who had failed before did so again. What’s more, most of the pro-failure rhetoric is coming from people who have “made it” in life—in other words, those for whom it’s easy to say that setbacks don’t preclude a happy ending.


Positive or not, one thing is certain: Failure is much more accepted today than it was when Silent and Boomers were coming of age. In fact, G.I. leaders drilled into these rising generations the opposite lesson: Follow the rules, avoid taking risks, and don’t fail. In fact, managers were once expected to be infallible, deflecting the blame when problems arose. While the Silent largely ended up taking these lessons to heart, young Boomers famously rebelled and adopted a risk-taking spirit—which their business leaders began applying on the job when they took over.


Generation X has embraced this mindset even more strongly. They’ve been largely defined by their response to tough economic and social situations, which helped shape their determination to work outside the system and succeed in unconventional ways. They were the driving force behind the Silicon Valley tech boom of the 1990s—where the idea of failure as a symbol of resilience really took root before catching on in other industries.


Most Millennials, however, are skeptical about the idea of failing upwards. Though their youth implies that they’re in the best position to take risks, Millennials are actually looking for security. They’d rather climb the corporate ladder than freelance indefinitely—and anticipate hurdles rather than stumble through them. Their poorer economic situation means that many simply can’t afford to risk it all on a “maybe.” They’re also coming of age at a time when failures are more public and permanent than ever; one social media blunder could keep them from getting a job.


This cautiousness is reflected in young adults’ actions. In addition to driving an across-the-board decline in risk-seeking behavior, this generation isn’t producing many entrepreneurs. From 1989 to 2013, the share of people under age 30 who own private businesses fell from 10.6% to 3.6%—a 24-year-low, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Federal Reserve data. Meanwhile, a Babson College survey finds that 41% of 25- to 34-year-olds cite “fear of failure” as their biggest roadblock to starting a business, up from 24% in 2001. The old dynamic has reversed. Now it’s the older leadership who extols the merits of failure—to young people who want to avoid it as they look for safer paths towards success.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe...brace-failure/
Millennials Don't Want To 'Embrace Failure'

Every year, far more new entrepreneurs fail than succeed. But if you aren’t one of the lucky few, don’t despair: Failure has transformed from a source of shame into a badge of honor. Today’s CEOs and thought leaders glorify mistakes as key stepping stones to success—a sentiment that Generation X has taken to a whole new level. In a recent essay for The Washington Post, Silicon Valley venture capitalist Geoff Lewis uses the phrase “failure porn” to describe the eager repackaging of people’s lowest moments—the grislier, the better. Older leaders are urging young people to take risks when they’re most able—but this message is ill-suited for Millennials, who would much rather get started on the right foot than stumble and start again.


Much of today’s “embrace failure” rhetoric originated in the business world. The past few years have brought countless books with titles like Adapt: Why Success Always Starts with Failure and Fail Fast, Fail Often: How Losing Can Help You Win. Virtually every big-name tech executive, from Steve Jobs to Mark Zuckerberg to Jeff Bezos, has publicly touted the value of their biggest misses. Startup failure is the focus of the annual conference FailCon, which launched in 2009 and over the next four years enjoyed sellout success, adding events in other countries like Brazil, Japan, and Israel. Last year, however, FailCon’s founder cancelled the San Francisco event out of the belief that failure is now so engrained in Silicon Valley culture that a conference is unnecessary.


Along the way, this idea has broadened into an industry-agnostic rallying cry. Bestsellers like The Antidote and Antifragile argue that failure and disorder benefit individuals and institutions alike. Meanwhile, on college campuses, commencement speeches have become an opportunity for luminaries from various fields to share stories of their failures. An NPR analysis of popular speeches going back to 1774 identified “embrace failure” as the sixth-most popular theme (outranking platitudes like “be kind” and “dream big”). Of the 38 speeches with this theme, all but three were delivered after 2000—by the likes of J.K. Rowling, Oprah, and Ben Bernanke.

The result is a culture where failure is not only destigmatized but also considered empowering. Rather than move on from setbacks, people are encouraged to examine them—and those who fail repeatedly are told not to give up.


Many view this shift in perspective as a welcome change. A culture that’s open about failure, they claim, can offer those who are struggling the confidence to pick themselves up and keep going. In fact, some investors believe failure to be an asset, a sign that one can handle adversity. (Of course, there’s a paradox here: Taking the stigma out of “failure” means it’s not really failure anymore.) In addition, this mindset indicates a willingness to learn and adapt. In a recent essay, Planet Money co-host Adam Davidson argued that this quality will only grow more important at a time when major industries—like education, finance, and health care—are facing seismic disruptions and their workers must reinvent themselves.


But skeptics counter that it doesn’t help anyone to portray failure as a springboard to greatness. Rather than enabling better choices, this framing can simply enable those who have floundered to try again heedlessly when they should be more mindful of challenges. A 2009 study reported in The New Yorker found that entrepreneurs who had failed at starting businesses in the past were not much more likely to succeed in new ventures than first-timers were; around 80% of those who had failed before did so again. What’s more, most of the pro-failure rhetoric is coming from people who have “made it” in life—in other words, those for whom it’s easy to say that setbacks don’t preclude a happy ending.


Positive or not, one thing is certain: Failure is much more accepted today than it was when Silent and Boomers were coming of age. In fact, G.I. leaders drilled into these rising generations the opposite lesson: Follow the rules, avoid taking risks, and don’t fail. In fact, managers were once expected to be infallible, deflecting the blame when problems arose. While the Silent largely ended up taking these lessons to heart, young Boomers famously rebelled and adopted a risk-taking spirit—which their business leaders began applying on the job when they took over.


Generation X has embraced this mindset even more strongly. They’ve been largely defined by their response to tough economic and social situations, which helped shape their determination to work outside the system and succeed in unconventional ways. They were the driving force behind the Silicon Valley tech boom of the 1990s—where the idea of failure as a symbol of resilience really took root before catching on in other industries.


Most Millennials, however, are skeptical about the idea of failing upwards. Though their youth implies that they’re in the best position to take risks, Millennials are actually looking for security. They’d rather climb the corporate ladder than freelance indefinitely—and anticipate hurdles rather than stumble through them. Their poorer economic situation means that many simply can’t afford to risk it all on a “maybe.” They’re also coming of age at a time when failures are more public and permanent than ever; one social media blunder could keep them from getting a job.


This cautiousness is reflected in young adults’ actions. In addition to driving an across-the-board decline in risk-seeking behavior, this generation isn’t producing many entrepreneurs. From 1989 to 2013, the share of people under age 30 who own private businesses fell from 10.6% to 3.6%—a 24-year-low, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Federal Reserve data. Meanwhile, a Babson College survey finds that 41% of 25- to 34-year-olds cite “fear of failure” as their biggest roadblock to starting a business, up from 24% in 2001. The old dynamic has reversed. Now it’s the older leadership who extols the merits of failure—to young people who want to avoid it as they look for safer paths towards success.

Xer posterchild for unrealized shareholders' equity here (as previously mentioned I was a holder of 6 digits of shares in a start up that never went anywhere). So yeah, in order for us to be innovative (and not become another stagnant Euro-esque place that invents little) we need to embrace failure. Within reason.

That said, I think Economic Darwinism has just about run its course. Creative Destruction schmucktion!

Not saying I want to end Capitalism and replace it with Communism though. I would like to move beyond those two camps. They are so 20th (and prior) Century.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Xer posterchild for unrealized shareholders' equity here (as previously mentioned I was a holder of 6 digits of shares in a start up that never went anywhere). So yeah, in order for us to be innovative (and not become another stagnant Euro-esque place that invents little) we need to embrace failure. Within reason.

That said, I think Economic Darwinism has just about run its course. Creative Destruction schmucktion!

Not saying I want to end Capitalism and replace it with Communism though. I would like to move beyond those two camps. They are so 20th (and prior) Century.

I think that we should wait the rest of this year and see if there is a new crash, being cautious to the extreme until then and if there is, only take risks after the next crash happens. If not, it's the time to take risks in stocks and the market because all the crashes have already happened. I think we should look at the times and the direction they are heading objectively to see what to do, not learn from previous times that just happened.

http://www.theburningplatform.com/20...ssed-part-one/
http://www.theburningplatform.com/20...ssed-part-two/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-0...-passed-part-3

Originally Posted by Bronco80

He just had to throw out the "militant neo-Keynesian" line, but it's still a useful article. As you know, I compare today to the 1930s all the time.

Also, for space concerns I'm omitting copying the graphs from the article. Check them out for sure--the message is that the US has done better today than during the Great Depression, but the UK and eurozone have done worse.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe...ing-the-1930s/

Are We Reliving The 1930s?

At the close of last week’s G20 Summit, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron warned that we’re on the verge of another global recession, citing problems like looming deflation, falling prices, and rising protectionist sentiment. This list evokes a sense of déjà vu: not about the Great Recession, but the Great Depression. That was the last time we ever seriously worried about disinflation, along with every practically other aspect of economic performance raising alarm bells today: low interest rates, weak investment, slow productivity growth, and chronic labor force detachment.

The difference between this decade and the 1930s is that the world avoided the catastrophic bank runs that ravaged national economies. This time the American President (Obama in contrast to Hoover) backed the banks before the stage of the meltdown in which the destructive bank runs devoured savings and payrolls. The money supply may not cause prosperity, but it certainly can ensure that people have a means of measuring their activity.

To be sure, this isn’t an easy comparison to swallow. The Great Depression is the ultimate measuring rod of economic catastrophe to which every other downturn is compared. But as time goes by and forecasts of full recovery keep getting deferred like an ever-fading mirage, it’s one worth examining. How does the Great Depression of the 1930s compare with the Great Recession of the 2010s? Let’s look at the GDPs of the U.S., U.K., and continental Western Europe from 1929 on and from 2007 on, using the base year as an index.

(I am showing only the graphs for the United States and Great Britain)

A few contrasts stand out. First, the Great Depression triggered much deeper drops in GDP and employment rates in the United States than in any major European country. The peak-to-trough drop in the United States from 1929 to 1933 was a stunning 26 percentage points of GDP, versus only 11 points in Europe and 6 points in the U.K. The employment drops were similar. Second, in both Europe and especially the United States, the depth of the Great Depression was much greater than the depth of the Great Recession. Only in the U.K. was the GDP loss roughly the same.

If the meltdown was more severe in America, the recovery was also stronger. America had to shore up the banking system, and then much of the meltdown could be undone rapidly. What is similar is the cause in America (the political realities and the economic climates of the 1920s and the Double-Zero Decade were parallel in many ways... weak, conservative government that indulged economic elites and fostered a speculative bubble that could only go bad), suggesting:

(1) the extinction of memories of those who remembered the destructive tendencies of the 1920s
(2) the willingness of people to do what people in political influence until the 1990s considered tempting but ultimately ruinous once those old people were off the scene
(3) the lack of economic caution characteristic of times other than a 3T, but increasingly rare as a 3T 'progresses'.

The difference between the US and the UK is plentiful cheap real estate in the US (by European standards) that makes the difference between a country with potential for economic growth and one in which economic activity is likely saturated. One can't go further with a cradle-to-grave welfare state, but a crack-the-whip economy like that of the US can get more growth due to its rejection of social justice. It's telling that such countries as Czechoslovakia and Poland imitated Germany and not the US. Russia, which was less democratic from 1991 on than most countries in central and southeastern Europe, adopted the American model of a few tycoons doing very well and an extreme tolerance for the supremacy of a bureaucratic elite as in the US.

Yet these figures don’t mean that the Depression was definitely worse. Though it was deeper, it was also shorter than the Great Recession in the U.K. and in Europe—and it likely will be shorter than the Great Recession in the United States. The recovery in the ‘30s occurred much faster than it has in recent years. In the U.K., GDP was already back above its 1929 level by 1934, five years after the recession began. Europe met that milestone by 1935, six years after their recession began. Today, Europe is going into its seventh year of recession and still has not regained its 2007 GDP level. In the United States, we remain better off today (relative to before the crash) than during the Great Depression, but that’s due to the severity of the early drop.

As in the 1930s and now in the 2010s, the severe economic meltdowns could only defer the acquisitive drive and consumerism -- they could never quite break them. I would not make much of a difference between recovering "1929" levels in 1934 as opposed to 1935; such looks statistically insignificant. As for the difference between the recoveries of the 1930s and 2010s, the 1930s still had room for innovative technologies and business models (for the latter, think of supermarkets in America) that have no obvious parallels today. Solar power, cell phones, tablets, and electric cars are more likely to reduce the consumption of materials than to enhance the consumption of materials. If you don't believe me, then just look at your e-reader: it surely has less cost in raw materials than a hardcover book.

What’s more, from 1933 on, U.S. GDP grew at a blistering average rate of over 8% per year for the next eight years. And that includes one recession year: 1938. By 1941, 12 years after the Great Depression began, U.S. GDP was 41% higher than its pre-downturn figure. This is almost certainly a much higher level, relative to 1929, than the United States will see by 2019, relative to 2007.

What was down -- and stayed down - in the late 1930s was the valuation of common stock. Stock market prices would not recover what was lost in nominal in the 1929-1922 meltdown until the early 1950s, and then with dollars much deflated in value. The US government generally put an emphasis on raising wages and shortening hours and allowing workers to form strong labor unions, which may have slowed the growth of corporate profits but created more economic stability. This time, security prices rose long before wages, and it is arguable that this time the objective of what could be the dominant Party from 2017 onward would be to squeeze workers on behalf of entrenched elites -- making labor unions impotent if not illegal, abolishing minimum wages, putting resource extraction above the environment, and ending welfare. The contemporary Right in America wants pure plutocracy -- fascist economics if without the torture chambers, concentration camps, pervasive corruption, book burnings, persecutions of minority groups, street militias, and military adventures -- and could be on the brink of achieving its paradise (and workers' Hell that includes hunger as an ever-present threat) of near-starvation pay with no economic security, brutal management, and the dismantling of the public sector. Whether such a pure plutocracy that imposes Gilded-style business ethics and plantation-style inequality needs or makes inevitable the torture chambers, concentration camps, pervasive corruption, book burnings, persecution of minority groups, street militias, and military adventures is yet to be shown even if the fascistic economy comes to pass. Maybe that will cause an economic collapse that begins as severely as that of 1929-1933 and continues even longer or leads to World War II or a second Civil War, in which case we could have a particularly-nasty 4T with a 1T that begins as ruin.

My point is not to diminish the magnitude of the Great Depression. It was certainly more terrifying, especially in its early years and in the social restlessness and political radicalism it spawned. But we can no longer think of it as longer-lasting: Bad times are shaping the temperament of a new rising generation around the world today just as surely as the original Great Depression did back then.

The Millennial Generation will be the last generation to understand the recent meltdown and its causes, just as the GI Generation was the last to fully understand the economic meltdown of 1929 and its causes. Both may have been terribly confused about the solutions in the 2010s and 1930s, respectively, but Americans will count on the Millennial Generation to push an economy that will not risk a return of the degenerate behavior of politics and economics of the 1920s and the Double-Zero Decade. Of course one can expect a repeat of the follies of the Roaring Twenties and the Double-Zero decade when the Millennial Generation is largely extinct in public life, beginning around 2080, with those follies making all things worse.


...

These parallels between eras are so numerous and striking that they are hard to miss once we look broadly at the direction of events. That’s why connecting the economic challenges of the 1930s with those of the 2010s, and seeing them as comparable in some respects, makes a difference. When we are connected to history, we can comprehend better what else is happening in the 2010s, predict better what is likely to happen next, and to figure out, if necessary, how we can avoid an outcome that we regard as especially dangerous.

The eighty-year rule (the usual length of time between the development of children's powers of observation and the departure of those children from public life) strikes again. But the 1920s made some aspects of the 1930s (economic distress and weakened political institutions)... and the Double-Zero Decade made some aspects of the 2010s inevitable.

The Millennial Generation will be the last generation to understand the recent meltdown and its causes, just as the GI Generation was the last to fully understand the economic meltdown of 1929 and its causes. Both may have been terribly confused about the solutions in the 2010s and 1930s, respectively, but Americans will count on the Millennial Generation to push an economy that will not risk a return of the degenerate behavior of politics and economics of the 1920s and the Double-Zero Decade. Of course one can expect a repeat of the follies of the Roaring Twenties and the Double-Zero decade when the Millennial Generation is largely extinct in public life, beginning around 2080, with those follies making all things worse.

The way to do that is to have an economy where people are allowed to fail and people aren't bailed out. It only makes sense people would act irresponsibly if they are considered "too big to fail".

Originally Posted by decadeologist101

The way to do that is to have an economy where people are allowed to fail and people aren't bailed out. It only makes sense people would act irresponsibly if they are considered "too big to fail".

On two occasions in my life I "failed." Both times I lost good jobs due to the corporate shrinkage that always happens when mergers and acquisitions occur.

In neither case was I bailed out. As it happens, I know quite a few folks who also have "failed" and have not been bailed out.

I guess that by "people" you mean large corporations, banks, that sort of thing? Or perhaps lobbyists?

Originally Posted by TnT

On two occasions in my life I "failed." Both times I lost good jobs due to the corporate shrinkage that always happens when mergers and acquisitions occur.

In neither case was I bailed out. As it happens, I know quite a few folks who also have "failed" and have not been bailed out.

I guess that by "people" you mean large corporations, banks, that sort of thing? Or perhaps lobbyists?

Perhaps he's referring to safety net things like Unemployment Insurance and SNAP (aka "food stamps").

Originally Posted by decadeologist101

It only makes sense people would act irresponsibly if they are considered "too big to fail".

WHY does it "make sense?" Is that the way YOU behave when confronted with difficulties? What mindset leads people to believe that most folks are lazy, good-for-nothing assholes who prefer living in penury off the government dole?

I suppose that there are people who, given sufficient "free" funds, would live to eat, sleep in a warm place, and have sex, only. But, is that all we are, as humans? Are we not more than that?

What does the simple Maslow model of "self-actualization" mean anyway? Doesn't that suggest that we all need more?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Perhaps he's referring to safety net things like Unemployment Insurance and SNAP (aka "food stamps").

With this wretched economy, can you find another job...a half decent job...or any job....fairly quickly? My old housemate couldn't find one, he commented that no one wants to hire someone near retirement age....when his resources ran out, he left and moved in with one of his sisters. I know another guy near retirement age, he has been looking for a long time now.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

With this wretched economy, can you find another job...a half decent job...or any job....fairly quickly? My old housemate couldn't find one, he commented that no one wants to hire someone near retirement age....when his resources ran out, he left and moved in with one of his sisters. I know another guy near retirement age, he has been looking for a long time now.

The debt fueled norm in the US is toxic for most people. And that is the master plan. Keep people scared, so you can work them hard and push them around. That last thing Corporate America wants is robotniks with paid off houses, no school funding for kids (or, no kids), etc. They want you in hock. They want you scared. And then, when the shit hits the fan when you are 59 years old, and you end up out on the street, you become an instant nobody who is deemed a worthless old former steed, who is ready for the rendering plant.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

The debt fueled norm in the US is toxic for most people. And that is the master plan. Keep people scared, so you can work them hard and push them around. That last thing Corporate America wants is robotniks with paid off houses, no school funding for kids (or, no kids), etc. They want you in hock. They want you scared. And then, when the shit hits the fan when you are 59 years old, and you end up out on the street, you become an instant nobody who is deemed a worthless old former steed, who is ready for the rendering plant.

Oh, and they also want you divorced (at least, they want you divorced after you have produced spawn to pay for future spending). Even a person who has been financially smart will generally be ruined by divorce, and forced back into the debt slavery system.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Oh, and they also want you divorced (at least, they want you divorced after you have produced spawn to pay for future spending). Even a person who has been financially smart will generally be ruined by divorce, and forced back into the debt slavery system.

Makes me glad I knew some of the Lost since they tended to be against taking on debt. It seems that they had similar problems.

Originally Posted by Galen

Makes me glad I knew some of the Lost since they tended to be against taking on debt. It seems that they had similar problems.

They got averse to debt after

(1) the credit binge that allowed people to overpay for automobiles, radios, and appliances,

(2) buying stocks on the margin, and

(3) the deflationary episode of 1929-1933 in which debt remained real but means of paying it back got much harder.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

The debt fueled norm in the US is toxic for most people. And that is the master plan. Keep people scared, so you can work them hard and push them around. That last thing Corporate America wants is robotniks with paid off houses, no school funding for kids (or, no kids), etc. They want you in hock. They want you scared. And then, when the shit hits the fan when you are 59 years old, and you end up out on the street, you become an instant nobody who is deemed a worthless old former steed, who is ready for the rendering plant.

Wow, I just totally fucked that plan up. I never did the debt thing and when corporate America axed me, I just boomeranged home and bought a cheapo $30,000 house with cash. Also, I have no kids who can become future debt slaves.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Wow, I just totally fucked that plan up. I never did the debt thing and when corporate America axed me, I just boomeranged home and bought a cheapo $30,000 house with cash. Also, I have no kids who can become future debt slaves.

Good man. Starve the beast.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Oh, and they also want you divorced (at least, they want you divorced after you have produced spawn to pay for future spending)...

-Actually, your plan (or "THEIR" plan) is a lot easier to pull off with a bunch of illiterate, inummerate illegals.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Actually, your plan (or "THEIR" plan) is a lot easier to pull off with a bunch of illiterate, inummerate illegals.

It's easy to pull off if the economic elites find ways to make the political choices of people other than themselves contrary to the will of the elite impossible.

"Illiterate, innumerate illegals?" Appalachia and the Ozarks will suffice even if the people are very, very white.

Hey, JDG -- you might try this:

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...378#post525378

Please show your results in the Forum to which I have linked.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It's easy to pull off if the economic elites find ways to make the political choices of people other than themselves contrary to the will of the elite impossible.

"Illiterate, innumerate illegals?" Appalachia and the Ozarks will suffice even if the people are very, very white.

-Among other things, those people can speak, read, and write English. Many illegals can't even read or write in their own language. And yet, teh Proggies would like more.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Hey, JDG -- you might try this:

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...378#post525378

Please show your results in the Forum to which I have linked.

-Eric the Chartreuse beat you to the punch.

Neil's last article on declining crime is no real surprise to any of us but I'm so glad he put it to words on a mainstream locale like Forbes. The current time in history has simply made it more difficult for Millennials to engage in as much crime as their immediate predecessors.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe...line-in-crime/

Oh, and I see Glick has also returned, so I'm sure I'll have some replies to some of his posts here and there.

Neil takes on the voice/text gap between Boomers and Millies:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe...-talking-less/

As a heavily Millie-leaning Xer, I have to take my younger cohorts' side on this one. Physical talking has its time and place when there's a substantial conversation to be had, but when you're just conveying banal news like "Meet you here at 8:30", there's no need to make a whole lot of small talk over it.