FYI I believe a 4T is a direct response to the ideals created during the 2T, with 1T/ 3T working as a bubble in between. Pop the bubble and it's like our post 9/11, middle Eastern wars and recession world is a continuation of the 70s.

Going back to the decadence of the 00s, I think people need to look at how people behaved and dressed as if the world wasn't falling apart, similar to how Scarlett O'Hara danced around as if nothing wrong during the Civil War, or how we had Dance marathons and happy musicals starring happy rich folks during the 30s. The early crisis is still an attempt to keep the illusion of the 3T alive and thats what deepens the crisis. Meanwhile, compare the popularization of hip hop in the 2000s with how Jazz became washed out and clean cut during the 30s. Our current eletcro dance scene is modern big band.

I think people in the 90s and 20s really did believe times were good and were not trying to escape.

I'm going to complete my ramblings by saying that I spoke to some late wave GI's and they didn't really feel the crisis of the 30s until maybe late in the decade.

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.

Russia is basically a dying empire trying to stay relevant, it's in a state of demographic and social collapse one finds in a lot of dying universal states. Putin's revanchism is basically equivalent to Justinian trying to reconquer the Western Empire, which ended up, in the end, weakening and bankrupting the Eastern Empire.

What happens when China decides it wants Siberia's resources?

Lol, we have another confirmation of Chas' theory that the 2001-as-crisis crowd is overwhelmingly people from the early 80s cohorts.

It's not that I don't agree with the Jazz as hip hop, electro-pop-dance-whatever as big band, I just don't think you've got the eras quite lined up right.

*shrug* your mileage may vary *shrug*

M & L,

Be patient a little longer, this hasn't played out yet. I suspect that once the history books get written whatever we've got coming will be conflated with the financial crisis, the Arab Spring, the Ukraine, the Eurocrisis, and other still unknown things into one very dramatic and happening time.

EDITED for a missing word

Originally Posted by Odin

Russia is basically a dying empire trying to stay relevant, it's in a state of demographic and social collapse one finds in a lot of dying universal states. Putin's revanchism is basically equivalent to Justinian trying to reconquer the Western Empire, which ended up, in the end, weakening and bankrupting the Eastern Empire.

What happens when China decides it wants Siberia's resources?

You might want to give the 90s back their talking points. Russia's population is actually growing, and has been for a few years. They are the second largest destination for immigrants after the US, and even their native total fertility rate is one of the highest in Europe.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Lol, we have another confirmation of Chas' theory that the 2001-as-crisis crowd is overwhelmingly people from the early 80s cohorts.

Anecdotes and personal emotional responses are great, but where's the data supporting a 2008 start date? The argument that the WoT wasn't intense enough doesn't exactly support the post-2008 de-escalation. The secular bear market is also a lot older than six years, but then again, I wouldn't expect most civics outside of the early cusp to have any sort of economic memories prior to a 4T.

That's part of what makes civics seem so impressive. The 4T is such a "normal" situation for them because it is all they've ever known. They start off on hard mode and the game only gets easier as they get older, wiser, and wealthier.

It's not that I don't agree with the Jazz as hip hop, electro-pop-dance-whatever as big band, I just don't think you've got the eras quite lined up right.

Peak of equities relative to commodities: 1929, 2001

Real GDP bottoms out: 1934, 2008

Peak of incarceration rates: 1937, 2009

72 or 74 years on a saeculum also fits very well with the observed average generational length of 18-19 years. Otherwise, the counter argument seems to be about personal emotional responses, rather than measurable social changes.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

You might want to give the 90s back their talking points. Russia's population is actually growing, and has been for a few years. They are the second largest destination for immigrants after the US, and even their native total fertility rate is one of the highest in Europe.

Russia gets involved in Crisis wars, sure, but when was the last time they started one? The July Crisis? (Again, probably one of the dumbest things the Tsar could have done, but it fits with the 4T mentality of "do something - anything!")

I don't see Putin as a prophet and rising fertility rates definitely contradict a 4T. If then, Putin is a nomad running a late-1T society, he's not itchy to start the apocalypse: he just wants to take as much territory as he can in a cost-effective manner. In that sense, he's already overextended.

You mean beyond the originator of the theory's disavowal of the 2001 start date? The scale of the 2008 recession versus the 2001? The absence of a political realignment? How about the pure arbitrariness of cherrypicking metrics like "peak of equities relative to commodities"? Why not P/E ratios? Why not something else? Incarceration declined between the start of the GD and the start of that late 30s recession. If 2008 were the start date, and another downturn in the economy is on its way, how do you know crime won't spike like it did then? Why would it matter, who chose peak incarceration as a metric? How do you know GDP has bottomed out? Do I really need to go back through our old threads and dredge up all of the inaccurate citations of statistics you've engaged in in an attempt to be "scientific"?

We've had this argument before. My being open-minded about other views does not mean I necessarily agree with your interpretation. I've made my opinions on this well-known, and they are quite different from yours. I've posited what a failure state for my interpretation would look like. As I said before, I really think you'd do well to go back through and read T4T again. A lot of the things you claim are indicative of say, the transition between a 3T and a 4T were contemporaneous with his writing, and listed by him as examples of a 3T culture. The coming boom that brings the economy to the "height of efficiency" that you are suggesting is indicative of the beginning of a 1T was mentioned in "A 4T prophecy" in their book as being characteristic of a post-regeneracy 4T. Speaking of which, regeneracies don't have to happen at the beginning of a 4T, but they do have to happen before the turning ends. Something to consider.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Russia gets involved in Crisis wars, sure, but when was the last time they started one? The July Crisis? (Again, probably one of the dumbest things the Tsar could have done, but it fits with the 4T mentality of "do something - anything!")

I don't see Putin as a prophet and rising fertility rates definitely contradict a 4T. If then, Putin is a nomad running a late-1T society, he's not itchy to start the apocalypse: he just wants to take as much territory as he can in a cost-effective manner. In that sense, he's already overextended.

First off, I am responding to Odin's tedious and dated "All Russians will grow old and die by mid-century" trope. It's false.

I agree that the FSR is in a late 1T/for Ukraine possibly beginning of a 2T. By that measure, the USSR fought WWII in a late 1T/2T cusp. And if there is a crisis conflict of some sort in our future, I'm not claiming that Putin would necessarily start it. Did you catch Victoria Nuland's comments at the beginning of 2014? We basically sponsored another coup there, and we've got people there now.





I have a lot easier time seeing a conflict started by a Hillary Clinton than I do a Putin or Xi Jinping.

Btw, I think the GWOT has a lot more in common with the Banana Wars than it does WWII.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Btw, I think the GWOT has a lot more in common with the Banana Wars than it does WWII.

I always considered it a diversion. We need someone to hate. The Muslims need someone to hate. Viola!

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Lol, we have another confirmation of Chas' theory that the 2001-as-crisis crowd is overwhelmingly people from the early 80s cohorts.

It's not that I don't agree with the Jazz as hip hop, electro-pop-dance-whatever as big band, I just don't think you've got the eras quite lined up right.

*shrug* your mileage may vary *shrug*

M & L,

Be patient a little longer, this hasn't played out yet. I suspect that once the history books get written whatever we've got coming will be conflated with the financial crisis, the Arab Spring, the Ukraine, the Eurocrisis, and other still unknown things into one very dramatic and happening time.

EDITED for a missing word

It's because Chas most likely came to his opinion after having many conversations with me. LOL He knows where I and other 81ers stand. So I'm not confirming his theory...I was probably the catalyst.

Originally Posted by millennialX

It's because Chas most likely came to his opinion after having many conversations with me. LOL He knows where I and other 81ers stand. So I'm not confirming his theory...I was probably the catalyst.

Entirely possible.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

You mean beyond the originator of the theory's disavowal of the 2001 start date? The scale of the 2008 recession versus the 2001? The absence of a political realignment? How about the pure arbitrariness of cherrypicking metrics like "peak of equities relative to commodities"? Why not P/E ratios? Why not something else? Incarceration declined between the start of the GD and the start of that late 30s recession. If 2008 were the start date, and another downturn in the economy is on its way, how do you know crime won't spike like it did then? Why would it matter, who chose peak incarceration as a metric? How do you know GDP has bottomed out? Do I really need to go back through our old threads and dredge up all of the inaccurate citations of statistics you've engaged in in an attempt to be "scientific"?

I'm trying to stay open-minded as well, but I just keep hearing personal anecdotes and now appeals to authority. We could use P/E ratios, and that would be yet another data point aligning 1929 with the 1999-2001 period. There are arguments to be made about the role of Y2k, and how quite unlike the rest of the 3T that social moment was. But that was still pre-seasonal to a lot of people.

Perhaps, instead of criticizing my interpretation of the data, why don't you provide some of your own? Pick something, anything. You claim for example that incarceration rates declined between the start of the GD and the start of the late 30s recession, but I don't see that anywhere.

That's part of what makes civics seem so impressive. The 4T is such a "normal" situation for them because it is all they've ever known. They start off on hard mode and the game only gets easier as they get older, wiser, and wealthier.

The 4T hasn't seemed normal to me. It just seems like I'm here waiting for things to get back on track again. Then again, I wasn't sheltered during the 3T and was aware of how different everything was.

Back on track, like when? From your perspective, when were things "on the right track?"

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Back on track, like when? From your perspective, when were things "on the right track?"

Summer 1998 and before in one sense, summer 2008 and before in another sense.

Well life after 2001 certainly feels different then life before 2001. But then again I was also a high schooler living home during the 90s and bubble or not, you can't compare your childhood norm with your adulthood one.

Originally Posted by millennialX

Well life after 2001 certainly feels different then life before 2001. But then again I was also a high schooler living home during the 90s and bubble or not, you can't compare your childhood norm with your adulthood one.

How long do you think it will be until core Millies (born in the mid 80s and later) will be the sole wielders of power in the country? I hope not until my mid 40s or later so I can establish my own business by then and not have to work for them, who don't appreciate skills and innovation and seem to only appreciate "doing what you are supposed to".

Originally Posted by decadeologist101

How long do you think it will be until core Millies (born in the mid 80s and later) will be the sole wielders of power in the country? I hope not until my mid 40s or later so I can establish my own business by then and not have to work for them, who don't appreciate skills and innovation and seem to only appreciate "doing what you are supposed to".

Psh you can have sole power over the cuspers when I'm dead. And why wait? Start your business now. The sooner you get that kind of experience the better your career trajectory is going to look. I quit and started a bunch of websites in 2008 and I spent quite a few of the worst years in relative comfort. When I came back to the job market, it was a very different and more favorable experience. Profits are at record highs and wages are at record lows now. The longer you wait, the better a "normal job" is going to look.

If you're just looking forward to a late 4T/1T of cheap commercial real estate, lower energy and input costs, then that's probably just five to ten years out. The rise of small businesses should put additional upward pressure on wages, but I still don't expect that until a few years in to the 1T.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Psh you can have sole power over the cuspers when I'm dead. And why wait? Start your business now. The sooner you get that kind of experience the better your career trajectory is going to look. I quit and started a bunch of websites in 2008 and I spent quite a few of the worst years in relative comfort. When I came back to the job market, it was a very different and more favorable experience. Profits are at record highs and wages are at record lows now. The longer you wait, the better a "normal job" is going to look.

If you're just looking forward to a late 4T/1T of cheap commercial real estate, lower energy and input costs, then that's probably just five to ten years out. The rise of small businesses should put additional upward pressure on wages, but I still don't expect that until a few years in to the 1T.

I didn't mean it literally. More like when will the cores be the main people in power and management. I also think housing prices in the suburbs will drop substantially, especially since many Boomers want to move to warmer climates and because many Millies are more interested in city life.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I'm trying to stay open-minded as well, but I just keep hearing personal anecdotes and now appeals to authority. We could use P/E ratios, and that would be yet another data point aligning 1929 with the 1999-2001 period. There are arguments to be made about the role of Y2k, and how quite unlike the rest of the 3T that social moment was. But that was still pre-seasonal to a lot of people.

Perhaps, instead of criticizing my interpretation of the data, why don't you provide some of your own? Pick something, anything. You claim for example that incarceration rates declined between the start of the GD and the start of the late 30s recession, but I don't see that anywhere.

Fuck it, it's a snow day, what else am I doing right now?

I love how the guy preening about how he remembers the 90s so well and how his crisis achievement was finding a job during the Bush years is suddenly coming down hard on "personal anecdotes", to counter which he has three vaguely related statistics. That's fine, we can work with that.

Also, while something is not right or wrong just because Neil Howe says it is (which is what an appeal to authority actually implies), claiming that the guy doesn't know how to apply his own theory is a claim that requires a bit more than some vague hand-waving.

As to the stall and slight decline in incarceration rates from 1931 to 1935, here you go.

http://static.prisonpolicy.org/priso...rationrate.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...25_onwards.png

Or, if you have trouble reading that, here's the raw data (scroll down)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...25_onwards.png

Now please tell me why you've fixated on this as an absolute indicator of where in a fourth turning we are? Preferably using a citation from the T4T, which is where these terms are actually defined.


As to your data points, the first thing to point out is that your numbers are off. Bottom of GDP during the depression was early 1933, the bottom of GDP during the recent recession was late 2009, peak of the equities market (even in terms of its relation to gold and other commodities) was March of 2000. I am also a little curious as to what you think they prove. The peak of the asset markets in 2000, which you tie in with 1929, was separated from the trough of GDP (thus far?) by a whole 9 years and change, with a whole business cycle in between, unlike the case during the GD. I see with your thing on peak incarceration rates that you are still trying to tie 2008 as being 1937, but I don't think that's really tenable.

Now, I do agree with you that things like asset values (in real terms) and labor force participation rates peaked in 2000, but real median wages and GDP per capita didn't peak until 2008, and even things like labor force participation didn't really fall of a cliff until the Great Recession (silly name).

It doesn't line up one for one with the previous situation at all. I'm willing to entertain the notion of a turn of the millennium start date because of 9/11 and the oddness of the economic data, but I don't think you've proved conclusively that Howe (and most of the board) are wrong and you are right. If you have other data points, I'd love to see them.

I've outlined some of the things I think would cause me to change my mind. Perhaps you can do the same, and, in the mean time, I will continue to associate the Great Recession with the onset of the Great Depression and David Petraeus as a poor saeculum's Smedley Butler*. We'll see how things turn out.

*Well, the analogy is (more than) a bit strained, but if we do get into some type of non-GWOT conflict in the next 5-10 years Petraeus' contributions to Iraq and Afghanistan will be about as memorable to the general public as Butler's exploits in the Caribbean. But otherwise, they are completely different people.

This is why I prefer to talk about this via facebook groups. The lack of seeing each other's faces makes it hard to know if someone is being witty or an ass hole.

Originally Posted by decadeologist101

How long do you think it will be until core Millies (born in the mid 80s and later) will be the sole wielders of power in the country? I hope not until my mid 40s or later so I can establish my own business by then and not have to work for them, who don't appreciate skills and innovation and seem to only appreciate "doing what you are supposed to".

Hmm. you know my cohorts so well and pretty much nailed my laziness. Man I hate fucking innovation. Fuck the internet. Screw it, I'm out.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

I love how the guy preening about how he remembers the 90s so well and how his crisis achievement was finding a job during the Bush years is suddenly coming down hard on "personal anecdotes", to counter which he has three vaguely related statistics. That's fine, we can work with that.

I saw glimpses enough of the 3T to realize what we'd mostly missed out on. I don't even know what you're talking about with the "job" because you've almost certainly misunderstood that conversation and taken it way out of context here. The best economic move I made during the Bush years was probably in quitting crappy jobs.

As to the stall and slight decline in incarceration rates from 1931 to 1935, here you go.

http://static.prisonpolicy.org/priso...rationrate.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...25_onwards.png

Or, if you have trouble reading that, here's the raw data (scroll down)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...25_onwards.png

Holy shit you are an S type aren't you? That's not even 1% - that's fucking noise in a clearly established trendline. I wouldn't be so indignant if you didn't claim that was "misrepresenting the statistics." It's a disagreement on significance and moving averages.

Now please tell me why you've fixated on this as an absolute indicator of where in a fourth turning we are? Prefe
rably using a citation from the T4T, which is where these terms are actually defined.

It's a clear saecular trend. Guess what, S&H didn't define the existence of saecular trends - they created a narrative for a known phenomenon. Crime and punishment are really good indicators because they are social statistics that have been collected for long enough to show a clear saecular trend line. Secular trends in social moods, well, that is pretty much what T4T is all about. If you have better metrics, then please - please - please!

I understand that social and economic data analysis will never be the precise science of chemistry. That's fine. It's a bigger challenge because it is so round-about and imprecise. You work with the data you get, you don't get to create experiments.

As to your data points, the first thing to point out is that your numbers are off. Bottom of GDP during the depression was early 1933, the bottom of GDP during the recent recession was late 2009, peak of the equities market (even in terms of its relation to gold and other commodities) was March of 2000. I am also a little curious as to what you think they prove. The peak of the asset markets in 2000, which you tie in with 1929, was separated from the trough of GDP (thus far?) by a whole 9 years and change, with a whole business cycle in between, unlike the case during the GD. I see with your thing on peak incarceration rates that you are still trying to tie 2008 as being 1937, but I don't think that's really tenable.

Nothing is going to be a carbon copy of WW2. WW2 happened once and only once. No other 4T follows the exact script. There are military factors, internal dissent factors, economic factors... but they're always different and they pop up at nearly random times because they're triggered by random events within a window of a certain turning. If Japan had bombed Pearl Harbor in 1935, would the 4T end quicker, or would we find some other things to panic about? The exact events don't matter, just the fact that prophets are in charge and freaking out.

Now, I do agree with you that things like asset values (in real terms) and labor force participation rates peaked in 2000, but real median wages and GDP per capita didn't peak until 2008, and even things like labor force participation didn't really fall of a cliff until the Great Recession (silly name).

OK, one percent wage growth over eight or nine years - that might as well be an entire lost decade. There are some issues with CPI, as well. It is slightly biased to an upper-income perspective and I'd love to see the BLS release some demographic breakdowns of their consumer surveys. I am kind of intuitively thinking that at the median, real wage growth was probably negative against the rising prices.

It doesn't line up one for one with the previous situation at all. I'm willing to entertain the notion of a turn of the millennium start date because of 9/11 and the oddness of the economic data, but I don't think you've proved conclusively that Howe (and most of the board) are wrong and you are right. If you have other data points, I'd love to see them.

2001 is just kind of near the middle of my preferred start dates. I think Kepi also makes a really good case for 2003, and using Chas' micro-turning theory we could explain 1999-2003 as the "micro-crisis" of a 3T, or a 3T that was on its very last legs and starting to mimic preasonal crisis behaviors.

2008 just seems kind of absurd to me, and requires stretching out the 3T and millennial generation well beyond the rest of the turnings and generations in our saeculum.

Whatever it is doesn't even really matter, because what I'm increasingly convinced of is that the economic 4T will be dead by 2020 unless some idiot starts a really big and really pointless war. But, if world powers engage in a true 4T total war, I think we're all pretty much fucked anyway. Nuclear proliferation sort of makes WW3 impossible, regardless of turning.

This is going to be less pretty, as I'm typing it out on a cellphone.

The misrepresenting of statistics bit had to do with the previous time we had this conversation. You didn't really cite statistics here, just list three sets of dates in order to present a false parallel between the course of this time period and the great depression. When I point out that your dates are wrong and don't show anything anyways suddenly you're waving your arms in the air and saying that there aren't going to be parallels and its not an exact science? Come on, dude, you're better than that. What was the point of your whole comparison then? Why is the peak of incarceration indicative of a late 4T? Do we have similar datapoints from other countries saecula, or previous us ones, or you contradicting the guy who invented the terms you're using with a dataset of two?