Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

I'm gonna have to agree with Kepi on this one. It really depends on how things look over the next few years. I personally hold with a 2008 start date, and think the GWOT stuff will end up as a sideshow, a distraction. If things start to stabilize dramatically from about 2016 on, the Boomers are out of office, the economy booms, etc. I'd consider one of the other start dates. If things with China/Russia heat up, OTOH, and/or the economy completely implodes, I think 2008 should be the start point, with the Great Recession/Russian invasion of Georgia as the dividing line.

America was not in Crisis mode for long. I contrast 9/11 to the Pearl Harbor attack -- similarly surprising, disgusting, and lethal -- and FDR did not tell Americans to "go shopping". To the contrary, Americans practically shut down the consumer economy; they accepted rationing; they started buying war bonds; war industries emerged out of the civilian luxury businesses; people started victory gardens; their prominent young adults signed up for military service.

The Double-Zero Decade is much like the Roaring 20s.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Really? 1985's ''We are the world'' may have been a bit post seasonal, but it's hard to see something a full quarter into the new turning having that much impact.

Yes, really.

"We are The World" was just a bit of posing. It took place several years after musicians and celebrities had ceased pretending they were trying to change the world, so that by 1985, this approach was considered a novelty.

Up and into the 2T, it used to be that moral acts were done for the sake of behaving morally. With the 3T, moral acts began to be done for the sake of showing what kind of person you are, a motivational change concurrent with the rise of the narcissistic personality, courtesy by Christopher Lasch (1979).

The actual message of Band/Live Aid and related events consequently was thus: "We lend a hand to the starving children in Africa, because by the original act of indulging in this orgy of naive altruism, we testify to the world what a bunch of immensely successful celebrities and pop singers we truly are, since only people this filthy rich and aloof would ever dream of behaving like this without being able to pinpoint Ethiopia on a map. What we do, in other words, we do spontaneously because of the people we are." (Headset adorned pop singers then gayly exit the multimillion dollar private helicopter, having transported them to a random dusty point on the savannah).

The entire aim was thus completely different from the pretension of changing the world during the 2T, which was meant to be taken seriously. Live Aid wasn't. It was simply what to do next in order to testify to personal success when all other avenues of brash indulgence and speculative excess had already been traveled. It was simply the new perversely flavored olive in the 80's Dry Martini. And in that sense, completely 3T.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

What about Colorado? That poor state is surround by , excepting New Mexico with wahoos.

Colorado doesn't know which way to go yet.

Originally Posted by Kepi

I really feel like 2008 is when the masses kind of realized it was the 4T rather than it being the proper start date.

According to the authors of T4T, a turning begins exactly when "the masses kind of realize" it.

Sure a lot of things happened in 2008, but nothing that has fundamentally altered the course of the nation. In fact, the national agenda of 2008 was to reestablish the status quo. 2008 didn't fundamentally alter the direction of America near as I can see. 2001 sure did, but those alterations didn't take effect until 2003, with the establishment of the DHS. Our national direction changed in 03. 05 had a lot of events, but those really seem to be mostly due to impacts from the changes made in 03.

DHS is not big deal, really. Just another cabinet department. America pursuing a dumb war, or protests and politicians elected who are against it, was nothing new in this saeculum, or even anything new in the 3T.

Remember what a 3T is. It's a conservative era, in which the powers-that-be are asserting themselves to hold on to their status, and stop and reverse the Awakening. Violations of human rights and civil liberties are common, and stupid wars are common too.

So I'm excited to see how the next few years wrap up because that's how proof will be in the pudding. If we don't start seeing things moving to a head by 2016, 2001 is way out, and likely 03 as well. If they do, 08 and 05 are out.

Well, you know the schedule. The former will be the case.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Yeah, I think China has more than enough internal problems to worry about, and even if they did want to expand, it would only piss us off if they went by boat. They have so many potential options that confronting America is pretty much the worst thing they could do. Russia has already overextended, and they don't seem to be in a dumb 4T mood.

If you thought that America had a speculative boom gone awry in the Double-Zero Decade, just wait until you see the one in China... implode.

I am expecting another drop in the markets soon, however.

The next drop will be the third drop: 2001, 2009, 2015-16. If you look for real economic values in between the nGDP noise, it comes out like a reverse head and shoulders pattern. 2001 was bad, 2009 was worse, and the next one will be the mildest in economic terms. In psychological terms, the next one might be the worst because we're already worn down, tired, and sick of the crapsack economy. I am expecting populist sentiment to grow even stronger as the economy sinks again.

Reality is going to hit hard -- in essence post-scarcity economics. We are producing and importing far more stuff than we need... lots of stuff that goes into the landfill. When the plutocratic oligarchy that the Right wants (along with people working far more hours than necessary to meet their needs -- which is one definition of exploitation, brutal management, and depressed pay) fails, we could well find out what Karl Marx means by "communism" even if we Americans have never experienced the "socialist" stage of organization. Capitalist investment and high technology have rendered many of the status symbols for which people worked not only irrelevant but contemptible.

Of course we will still want experiences (having never been to either Yellowstone National Park nor New York City, I can't imagine good alternatives for either), and being stranded in what seems like a peasant village with more limitations than delights can be tantamount to imprisonment. There will still be honest-to-Veblen scarcities of antiques, gems, gold, leather bindings, teak, and prime beachfront property that no technology will be able to create.

But the overall economic picture would be a reversed head and shoulders pattern pointing to a huge growth era, aka 1T. The long-term bull line would line up perfectly with the solar power parity point of 2019-2020, and that could end the Nuclear Era in a much more peaceful way than it began. Cheap, renewable energy instantly kills most of our 4T nightmares, even terrorism from mostly oil-producing countries.

When solar power is really cheap, the virtual world takes off. The crapsack economy that depends upon fear to enforce obedience to the economic elites will become irrelevant. I found that since I got an e-reader that I no longer need a physical book to enjoy reading. That's much money (especially if most of the books truly worthy of reading are in the public domain) and shopping time that I no longer need spend. I found much of the free concert material wonderful... so good that I got another tablet and connected it to the stereo through the "AUX" jack. I will keep my studio CDs.

Real progress is not in finding more resources to devour; it is instead in getting more done with lesser use of stuff.

I hope we return to people starting small businesses again so that creativity comes back again. I hope we return en masse to growing some of our own food and to some of the DIY culture.
Deflation during the Great Depression was needed to have the new small businesses start. I also see it as a way to keep wages in check with inflation. If there is deflation, you can buy a lot more for less.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

America was not in Crisis mode for long. I contrast 9/11 to the Pearl Harbor attack -- similarly surprising, disgusting, and lethal -- and FDR did not tell Americans to "go shopping". To the contrary, Americans practically shut down the consumer economy; they accepted rationing; they started buying war bonds; war industries emerged out of the civilian luxury businesses; people started victory gardens; their prominent young adults signed up for military service.

The Double-Zero Decade is much like the Roaring 20s.

As late as 1933 there were major newspapers denying there was a depression in the first place. Not everyone realized it was a crisis back in 1929 until hindsight.
2008/2009-2011 were the worst years of this crisis IMO.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

According to the authors of T4T, a turning begins exactly when "the masses kind of realize" it.

DHS is not big deal, really. Just another cabinet department. America pursuing a dumb war, or protests and politicians elected who are against it, was nothing new in this saeculum, or even anything new in the 3T.

Remember what a 3T is. It's a conservative era, in which the powers-that-be are asserting themselves to hold on to their status, and stop and reverse the Awakening. Violations of human rights and civil liberties are common, and stupid wars are common too.

Well, you know the schedule. The former will be the case.

That would be because the authors had trouble seeing history as an inherently retrospective narrative. We only keep taking about the things which are relevant to us now. We consign the rest of it to history's dust bin. Making history had more options because reality isn't a complete narrative. It's a lot of random bits which can go this way or that until it does, and it's after the fact that we assign meaning.

Kinda like how the DHS is no big deal for you, but to me three DHS goes hand in hand with the NSA overreach: the people involved in its creation should be tried for treason. This is why the narrative aspect is so important. If it was up to Boomers it would be all about the Republicans and Democrats and how one over took the other and so on and so forth. If it was silents telling the story it would all be relative to our fight and inevitable victory over the Russians. Regardless if pesky things like facts, that's how the story would go because those are the things that matter to those generations. But they don't get too pick and choose 1) the ending of the story or 2) what of the story is told to the subsequent generation or 3) what is most important, how that interpretation is received by the generation after that.

So regardless of what you want the case to be, you'll have to live with whatever it is that Xers and Millennials want to do with it, and I suspect that much like all your predictions regarding the illustrious Gore presidency, the idea that the crisis will last until 2029 for the US will be little more than smoke and ashes.

Originally Posted by Kepi

That would be because the authors had trouble seeing history as an inherently retrospective narrative. We only keep taking about the things which are relevant to us now. We consign the rest of it to history's dust bin. Making history had more options because reality isn't a complete narrative. It's a lot of random bits which can go this way or that until it does, and it's after the fact that we assign meaning.

Kinda like how the DHS is no big deal for you, but to me three DHS goes hand in hand with the NSA overreach: the people involved in its creation should be tried for treason. This is why the narrative aspect is so important. If it was up to Boomers it would be all about the Republicans and Democrats and how one over took the other and so on and so forth. If it was silents telling the story it would all be relative to our fight and inevitable victory over the Russians. Regardless if pesky things like facts, that's how the story would go because those are the things that matter to those generations. But they don't get too pick and choose 1) the ending of the story or 2) what of the story is told to the subsequent generation or 3) what is most important, how that interpretation is received by the generation after that.

So regardless of what you want the case to be, you'll have to live with whatever it is that Xers and Millennials want to do with it, and I suspect that much like all your predictions regarding the illustrious Gore presidency, the idea that the crisis will last until 2029 for the US will be little more than smoke and ashes.

I hope we will get rid of the big brother state in the 2020s.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

I'm gonna have to agree with Kepi on this one. It really depends on how things look over the next few years. I personally hold with a 2008 start date, and think the GWOT stuff will end up as a sideshow, a distraction. If things start to stabilize dramatically from about 2016 on, the Boomers are out of office, the economy booms, etc. I'd consider one of the other start dates. If things with China/Russia heat up, OTOH, and/or the economy completely implodes, I think 2008 should be the start point, with the Great Recession/Russian invasion of Georgia as the dividing line.

My question for you is this: how would you call it if both our scenarios are true. Let's say the Boomers retire, it sets off an ugly stock chain reaction which causes the economy to implode. Meanwhile the ramifications are that the US is in no position to intervene any more. Russia decides to rebuild their empire, Europe is crippled by their own top heavy population and economic zenith, and China steps in to stop Russia, let's say they end it in whatever manner you choose, but the US does not participate. The US is able to eventually rebuild itself after a harsh deflationary spiral, and major government overhaul with with possibly a constitutional convention or violent revolution thrown in there. The End result is that the US manages to be the Hegemon more by default, but with a reorganized, more western centric economic core because the western nations have older, top heavy populations and after years of war they just can't overcome their excessive expenditures.

Where do you start the crisis, where do you end it, and how do you condense it into a meaningful narrative?

* Also, for giggles, extra-credit, whatever, imagine the US arises from the ashes as all other presidential systems have: a totalitarian dictatorship: does this make any difference in the narrative, or merely a difference in facts?

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I am expecting another drop in the markets soon, however.

The next drop will be the third drop: 2001, 2009, 2015-16. If you look for real economic values in between the nGDP noise, it comes out like a reverse head and shoulders pattern. 2001 was bad, 2009 was worse, and the next one will be the mildest in economic terms.

But the overall economic picture would be a reversed head and shoulders pattern pointing to a huge growth era, aka 1T.

This seems to be based on technical analysis. What is the real perspective? The issue I cannot figure out is how has GDP grown as much as it has when income and employment has been so dismal? Consider, median real income per worker has not risen over the last decade and total employment has scarcely risen. Thus the flow of income to rank-and-file consumers hasn't increased much. Yet GDP has increased a lot. How are consumers buying this GDP if their aggregate income hasn't risen? Is it consumer debt? If so why is that not a problem? Or are the rich really buying more goods and services relative to assets than they used to? If so then why the high asset prices? Something doesn't add up it seems.

Put another way, when the next recession begins and the Fed is already 100% tapped out, and stimulus is ruled out politically, what force is going to make the recession milder than even the very mild 2001 recession, in which the Fed ignited a real estate bubble to provide massive stimulus?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This seems to be based on technical analysis. What is the real perspective? The issue I cannot figure out is how has GDP grown as much as it has when income and employment has been so dismal? Consider, median real income per worker has not risen over the last decade and total employment has scarcely risen. Thus the flow of income to rank-and-file consumers hasn't increased much. Yet GDP has increased a lot. How are consumers buying this GDP if their aggregate income hasn't risen? Is it consumer debt? If so why is that not a problem? Or are the rich really buying more goods and services relative to assets than they used to? If so then why the high asset prices? Something doesn't add up it seems.

Consumer debt seems stable even though personal consumption is up. Investment and exports are also up. Now, although the rich haven't increased their rate of consumption, the total amount of wealth they've got means that the total consumption is up. More yachts and higher asset prices (although cyclically adjusted PE is a little high), because labor isn't receiving the benefits of labor's increased productivity. The productivity is real and so is the increase in exports, but demand is still weak under this particular distribution of income.

Put another way, when the next recession begins and the Fed is already 100% tapped out, and stimulus is ruled out politically, what force is going to make the recession milder than even the very mild 2001 recession, in which the Fed ignited a real estate bubble to provide massive stimulus?

I still don't think that the real estate bubble or commodity bubble represent "good stimulus." I think future economic historians will look back on these as the self-inflicted wounds of our current 4T.

The 2001 response may have helped cushion the blow (temporarily) for people who owned homes, but it just drove up rents for people who didn't own, and those just entering the job market. No actual wealth was created, it was merely transferred from renters to owners, and then in 2009, transferred from the owners to the banks. Those high rents probably prevented as much consumption as the higher property values enabled through equity loans. And in the end, those upside down homes were worth more trouble than the short term consumption they may or may not have enabled.

In 2009 the solution was to drop effective interest rates to below zero and recapitalize the banks at all cost. Did it stop a panic? Sure. Did it restore consumption or consumer confidence? Hell no. The second rescue destroyed consumption by jacking up the price of food, oil, metals.

So this time, no stimulus may be better than counter-productive stimulus. There's nothing to stop commodities from falling further (beyond oil, even) and this process may speed up as equities de-leverage.

Of course, on the five year horizon, energy prices become less sensitive to shocks and political disruptions. Solar is starting to displace fossil fuels, not for any particular environmental reasons, but for purely economic ones. Cheap oil might delay that for a while, but it still does so in a way that is good for U.S. GDP growth.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

I'm gonna have to agree with Kepi on this one. It really depends on how things look over the next few years. I personally hold with a 2008 start date, and think the GWOT stuff will end up as a sideshow, a distraction. If things start to stabilize dramatically from about 2016 on, the Boomers are out of office, the economy booms, etc. I'd consider one of the other start dates. If things with China/Russia heat up, OTOH, and/or the economy completely implodes, I think 2008 should be the start point, with the Great Recession/Russian invasion of Georgia as the dividing line.

Continued quantitative easing to no avail as the deflationary spiral moves from a mere storm to a hurricane, the series of SALT/NPT/INF falling apart, Russia actually invading in a hostile manner (as opposed to invited by a failing government) for the first time since 1945, China taking small bits of land in rapid sequence, and the chimera of globalist bliss clearly discredited. Looks like war winds to me.

Pbrower,

Keep in mind that I do agree that the Great Recession was the start point, and that the 0s were largely equivalent to the 1920s. I've had this discussion with these gentlemen before. I am simply allowing for alternate interpretations, because unlike some people I can distinguish between my personal opinions and analysis and "The Truth(tm)".


Kepi,

Lot of supposition, there. A lot depends on the specific (and unknowable) outcomes of future events. Who remains in power once all the present festivities play out will determine what narratives get set down, and what events become more important in hindsight.



John,



I do agree with your notion that the third dip will conclude the triple-peak/head-and-shoulders pattern that should set the stage for renewed longterm growth. However, if you take Mikebert's point and add in the P/E ratios associated with longterm troughs in the past, I think the next downturn will be more severe than you seem to expect. I also disagree with your triumphalism with regards to the Russia-Ukraine situation, and I think you are seriously misinterpreting the generational-political dynamics at work in East Asia right now.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Continued quantitative easing to no avail as the deflationary spiral moves from a mere storm to a hurricane, the series of SALT/NPT/INF falling apart, Russia actually invading in a hostile manner (as opposed to invited by a failing government) for the first time since 1945, China taking small bits of land in rapid sequence, and the chimera of globalist bliss clearly discredited. Looks like war winds to me.

I agree with you, to a point, but I think you are expecting too much of a WWII redux, while I think the actual conflict will look much different.

Originally Posted by Kepi

That would be because the authors had trouble seeing history as an inherently retrospective narrative. We only keep taking about the things which are relevant to us now. We consign the rest of it to history's dust bin. Making history had more options because reality isn't a complete narrative. It's a lot of random bits which can go this way or that until it does, and it's after the fact that we assign meaning.

You don't have to agree with the authors' theory, but it does propose that there are repeating cycles. You invoke the theory by referring to a 4T, but you don't adhere to the definition and the cycle lengths of the theory. All fine and good, but you don't have the theory to fall back on then; it's your own theory.

Kinda like how the DHS is no big deal for you, but to me three DHS goes hand in hand with the NSA overreach: the people involved in its creation should be tried for treason. This is why the narrative aspect is so important. If it was up to Boomers it would be all about the Republicans and Democrats and how one over took the other and so on and so forth. If it was silents telling the story it would all be relative to our fight and inevitable victory over the Russians. Regardless if pesky things like facts, that's how the story would go because those are the things that matter to those generations. But they don't get too pick and choose 1) the ending of the story or 2) what of the story is told to the subsequent generation or 3) what is most important, how that interpretation is received by the generation after that.

I don't approve of NSA over-reach, but I consider it a typical 3T manifestation, as I mentioned. Wilson and his cabinet did the same in WWI.

Boomers don't say it's "all about the Republicans and Democrats and how one over took the other and so on and so forth." One didn't "take over" the other, although some geographic allegiances switched starting in the 1960s. The Republicans represent the entrenched status quo and outdated ideologies. They are those who are blocking what needs to get done now; that's all there is to it.

The Silents are not hung up on the Cold War now. Too many of them have fallen for the same Republican ideology that you fail to see is the block to progress-- the awareness of which which you attribute to Boomers alone. No, anyone who sees straight, can see what is happening now. It's a stalemate between those who want some progress and those who are blocking it. This 4T is largely about breaking that block, in very similar ways to previous 4Ts.

Older generations will still have people in power when the 4T ends. It will be up to millies to decide whether they are going to learn how to participate in the political process. Right now, they don't know how. If they learn how, then they can break the block, in whatever way they decide to break it.

I think previous 4Ts have been interpreted according to the side that won. History is written by the winners. Thus far, the progressive side has always won.

So regardless of what you want the case to be, you'll have to live with whatever it is that Xers and Millennials want to do with it, and I suspect that much like all your predictions regarding the illustrious Gore presidency, the idea that the crisis will last until 2029 for the US will be little more than smoke and ashes.

My prediction rate is better than that for any prophet I know. I was wrong about Gore, but when I tell people about it, they say, "you weren't wrong, he WAS elected."

Mr. Howe and I will be right, and it is your prediction that will be little more than smoke and ashes. As a favorite song of mine says, " that's the way it's gonna be, wait and see! Just you wait and seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee "

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

I agree with you, to a point, but I think you are expecting too much of a WWII redux, while I think the actual conflict will look much different.

I can't tell you how the conflict will look but it seems apparent a conflict is on the way.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I can't tell you how the conflict will look but it seems apparent a conflict is on the way.

We've already been there. Isn't the Ukraine a nearly perfect example of low-burn conflict? No one wants the nukes flying, so the conflict will be conventional and limited ... which is the same as the proxy wars of the late 20th century. If we are ever stupid enough to start a Big War, it will be the last war for a long time.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We've already been there. Isn't the Ukraine a nearly perfect example of low-burn conflict? No one wants the nukes flying, so the conflict will be conventional and limited ... which is the same as the proxy wars of the late 20th century. If we are ever stupid enough to start a Big War, it will be the last war for a long time.

While plausible, I can't help but feel this attitude is similar to your views on economic and political change, ie everything is going to stay pretty much the same. Which is to say, what you really mean is, "I'm old! Get off my lawn!"

Mikebert,


Another factor boosting GDP has been the tracking bubble(itself enabled by low interestrates), which has been responsible for a big chunk of corporate capex, junk bonds, rail traffic, and employment growth (relatively high paid at that) over the last few years. The collapse of the same will be a big blow to the economy. With slowing growth and a stronger dollar impeding corporate profits here in the near future, the fallout could be big.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

While plausible, I can't help but feel this attitude is similar to your views on economic and political change, ie everything is going to stay pretty much the same. Which is to say, what you really mean is, "I'm old! Get off my lawn!"

We are so terribly overdue for "not stays the same" ... it is utterly frightening.

I don't think most people are ready to cope with all the harsh realities that will occur when "not stays the same" comes knocking.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

We are so terribly overdue for "not stays the same" ... it is utterly frightening.

I don't think most people are ready to cope with all the harsh realities that will occur when "not stays the same" comes knocking.

I always abide by the "if it doesn't look good, bug out" philosophy.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Mikebert,

Another factor boosting GDP has been the tracking bubble(itself enabled by low interest rates), which has been responsible for a big chunk of corporate capex, junk bonds, rail traffic, and employment growth (relatively high paid at that) over the last few years. The collapse of the same will be a big blow to the economy. With slowing growth and a stronger dollar impeding corporate profits here in the near future, the fallout could be big.

Eh, if GDP gets to low, jut jive it up with some "hedonistic adjustments" like drugs and prostitutes. . That way it can be just like the CPI.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

While plausible, I can't help but feel this attitude is similar to your views on economic and political change, ie everything is going to stay pretty much the same. Which is to say, what you really mean is, "I'm old! Get off my lawn!"

No, change will come ... just not now. I've never seen a period of more sclerotic politics than is the case today (perspective: the advantage of being old). Worse, the world got lazy when the Cold War ended, and the rest of the West is even less engaged than we are. This is exacerbated by private wealth that's free to distort and twist political forces to its will.

Think of two well matched Sumo wrestlers in the center of the ring. A lot of energy is expended, but nothing happens until everything happens at once. We're 40 years into a mode that is antithetical to the interests on most people, and growing moreso everyday, yet it shows no sign of weakening. It may never weaken; it may just snap. But like an earthquake, the pressures build until the fault slips. The longer it takes, the greater the quake.

Personally, I would prefer a 4T that resolves 90% of the outstanding issues, but I'm having problems seeing it.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Instead of arguing (again) that the War on Terror is actually a relatively huge troop commitment and occupation by relative, historical standards (nation-building, length of occupation, per-soldier spending, and number of non-combat civilians working in National Security positions)...

The main political difference I see between 3Ts and 4Ts is the attitude toward getting stuff done.

In a 3T, very little tends to happen. The WTC got bombed, the OKC federal building was reduced to rubble, and we honestly didn't do too much about it. We talked about doing something - we even debated the various merits and faults of the things we might have done, but we ultimately did squat. LA burned for a while and knocking out Saddam's army seemed a "good enough" counter to his active invasion of a defenseless, oil-producing ally. Speaking of oil, gas cost less than a buck a gallon. That's the 3T. It runs from the early 80s to the late 90s, and I really don't think most Millennials have much perspective on it because it was also a time that children were increasingly sheltered. Even if an individual's parents weren't sheltering them, society had shifted that way. The whole goal of child-rearing in the 3T was to prevent Millennials from witnessing a 3T! (and of course, this is taken to a further extreme in regard to sheltering artists from the 4T)

In a 4T, you STFU and do what you need to do. Even if you live in a consumer-based economy that relies on the fact that workers spend more than their paychecks on crap they don't need. The drop in consumer spending is exactly what prolonged the Great Depression and spending in the face of contraction is exactly what Keynes said we should do should another 4T-like deflation event show up. Even Bush's deficit spending and record debts were straight out of an economic textbook. Without those things, we probably would have experienced a much more severe economic downturn after the 99 tech bubble and 9/11. Even with the real estate bubble to cushion that blow, those two events still stand out as larger macroeconomic fault-lines than 2009. We can definitely find economic fault with the "long term value" of Bush's deficit spending investments (shitty)but the general idea is on the right track to avoiding a more horrific economic situation. We're learning. Each 4T should be less bad than the last.

If anything, the 4T starts off over-correcting 3T procrastination by undertaking large and often stupid decisions at major scales, with very little discussion. Can anyone think of a dumber government decision than, say, South Carolina seceding from the Union? Like the PATRIOT Act, it was a unanimous decision and anyone who disagreed with the all-or-nothing logic of crisis was a damned yankee-sympathizer and traitor to the Confederacy.

So that's what 4Ts are about. They're not about honor and duty and sacrifice and wars and dead people: They're about fear and panic shocking people in to action.

Right on!

And the themes created in response to 9/11 are still haunting us today. Honestly I'm forgetting about 08, while the general idea that society continues to push in our heads every year is to "Never Forget" as if that call is our new civic duty.

You can find these themes in all forms of life, media (shows like 24) and pop culture and I actually agree with the the notion that our crisis is about our fallen super power. It's the response to 9//11 that starts to get this going (which is also why 2003 is my second date).

The same event (terrorist attack, recession and/or hurricane) can happen in any turning but it's the response to those events that let you know which turning you're in. People like to harp on the "Go shopping line" and while Bush said that to the people (to keep us calm) his true response to 9/11 said otherwise and put us into crisis mode. Furthermore, I'm not sure Hoover was very 4T when the last Crisis first began.


In fact I say 2008 may have felt worst for some because our inefficient government paid more attention to 9/11. In the big picture of things, I think people will look back at 08 and just remember that the first Black man became President.

Lastly, I don't think we should expect a huge shift with everyone suddenly caring about their civic duty towards gov because its a lack of respect for things civic and our failed government that's the catalyst for this crisis to begin with.