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

Hold up, critical point here. Who do you think is going to be having the final say on precisely what the history books say when the 1T comes to pass?

I'm not saying that it's impossible to change our bias regarding more or less precisely how much we hate the direction the country turned after 9-11, I'm saying it would have to be a huge course of events that made us forget it. If Bush makes very far into the 1T without facing war crime charges or something similar.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Hold up, critical point here. Who do you think is going to be having the final say on precisely what the history books say when the 1T comes to pass?

Once again, Kepi, the answer is: whoever wins. It certainly won't be a particular generation.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to change our bias regarding more or less precisely how much we hate the direction the country turned after 9-11, I'm saying it would have to be a huge course of events that made us forget it. If Bush makes very far into the 1T without facing war crime charges or something similar.

Many of us hated that direction. That doesn't mean it was a 4T. It's 3Ts where nations go in wrong directions. Our 3T was one long 24-year wrong direction.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

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.

Probably it seems that way because the 1T was shortened a bit by the timing of the JFK assassination. Boomers were cut short on their dates too for the same reason, though their numbers make up for it. So the 3T/millennial dates just balance out a normal saeculum length.

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.

"There will be blood" in Dec. 2020. But not radiation.

Plus, another recession. Plus, our great national divide needs to resolve itself, in victory, civil war, revolution or all of the above.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

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.

We tried that with gambling. We are now oversaturated with casinos and state lotteries. Michigan probably has more legal gambling than Nevada.

Mentally the 4T started around 1999-2001. Economically it started in 2008.

The first line of chapter 10 in their The Fourth Turning book, S&H had "sometime around 2005" as the date for 4T Crisis beginning.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Hold up, critical point here. Who do you think is going to be having the final say on precisely what the history books say when the 1T comes to pass?

I'm not saying that it's impossible to change our bias regarding more or less precisely how much we hate the direction the country turned after 9-11, I'm saying it would have to be a huge course of events that made us forget it. If Bush makes very far into the 1T without facing war crime charges or something similar.

Is it still possible that Bush could be to the next 1T what the Rosenbergs were to the last one?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

"There will be blood" in Dec. 2020. But not radiation.

Could it be that the bloodshed will be from an event similar to one which happened in the same month back in 1941?

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Is it still possible that Bush could be to the next 1T what the Rosenbergs were to the last one?

Possibly, but I'm more seeing it as the "atom bomb moment". It would be that moment where the world has to acknowledge that the US is something very different from what it was before. I could see it add it's own event, or possibly one where you have a massive social moment where justice gets served to the old world by the emerging one. Bush goes on trial for war crimes, management from major banks are hunted and arrested, major government agencies get shut down our reorganized beyond recognition.

Basically, with the US Millennials not having what they consider an external villain to fight, nor an internal personage they really want to champion, they're going to default to the Harry Potter/Star Wars "kill the false king"/"revolt against the evil empire narrative" the minute they have an ounce power more than the Boomers.

Our democratic institutions have not been so shaky since the Civil War. Do we shore them up (a solution that almost certainly ends well in view of the Great Power status of the United States) or do we let them decline, perhaps with the rise of some novel form of tyranny that sheds blood of patriotic dissidents or resistors abroad (ruin)? America can become like South Africa under Apartheid, Spain under the Franco dictatorship, Italy under Mussolini. We can yet have a Dirty War in America.

Originally Posted by millennialX

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.

On the other hand -- such could serve a simple need, a reminder that there will be better times. People needed something other than the grittiness around them. The 'happy musicals' and screwball comedies of the 1930s as much suggested what the world would be like after the Depression and international nastiness would be over. Even at that there might be a difference between an early Crisis Era musical like Anything Goes and a late Crisis Era movie like Yankee Doodle Dandy (sure, there's a war going on with the latter). With State Fair, the Crisis is over.

A screwball comedy like Bringing Up Baby gives some insights into what the 1950s would be like -- undeniably prosperous... with the leopard perhaps showing what a young couple could expect with a baby. Babies aren't the most convenient objects in the world, and neither are leopards... but by 1939 America is already looking more like America around 1950 than like America around 1925.

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

The 1920s were nasty if one was a dirt farmer. A common joke in rural America was "I beat the Great Depression. For me it started in 1927"... reflecting the low commodity prices of the 1920s.

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.

Wave I -- the economic meltdown. If one managed to avoid that the early 1930s weren't that bad (although one might be bled for help by every relative). Wave II -- the international Crisis. Combat against the demonic powers of the Axis was no triviality.

I'm wondering if this entire discussion isn't completely academic. The boundary between 4Ts and 1Ts is easily confirmed by the cohort (of Prophets) that leads the awakening, just as the one between 1Ts and 2Ts is confirmed by the cohort (of Nomads) that leads the reaction. Likewise the boundary between 2Ts and 3Ts can be confirmed by the first cohort (of Civics) that actually doesn't mind being seen with their parents. One can simply add two or three years to the first cohort year and that should be the start of the turning. (This is why I also happen to believe the generations close to the Civil War are a bit skewed.)

The 3T/4T boundary is a bit more problematic if the great event is not the catalyst. We may never get a definitive answer on the start of the 4T, if in fact the Civic/Artist boundary is determined more by when the 4T ends than when it begins as was clearly the case with the end of WWII.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Could it be that the bloodshed will be from an event similar to one which happened in the same month back in 1941?

Not in the sense that it will be an attack on the United States of America. But it could happen in Russian areas of influence or the Middle East in Dec. 2020 or Jan 2021. The Far East is a possibility; in fact it could involve Japan again. America could be drawn in 5 years later. In that respect, it will be more like the Vietnam War, but if and when we do get drawn in, it won't be a quagmire. But major war breaking out somewhere then seems written in the stars for sure, unless we have miraculously learned to be peaceful humans. That's my prediction, FWIW.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not in the sense that it will be an attack on the United States of America. But it could happen in Russian areas of influence or the Middle East in Dec. 2020 or Jan 2021. The Far East is a possibility; in fact it could involve Japan again. America could be drawn in 5 years later. In that respect, it will be more like the Vietnam War, but if and when we do get drawn in, it won't be a quagmire. But major war breaking out somewhere then seems written in the stars for sure, unless we have miraculously learned to be peaceful humans. That's my prediction, FWIW.

Funny, because I don't think one of the signs I'd crisis ends is when we no longer allow ourselves to be drawn into other people's wars. The old way of thinking is "we need to prevent future holocausts", where I think the new one will be either "we really have no way of knowing what will and will not be a holocaust, and dropping the hammer without evidence makes us the bad guy" or "we really can't afford perpetual conflict".

I think this ends with the US dropping Europe from the economic core, leaving Russia to run a decaying, economically non-viable Europe in favor of setting up a new core with other Western Hemisphere nations (Canada, Brazil, and Mexico are the top contenders) to run basically a Western economic world. China and Japan are going to implode due to declining populations, and likely it will be Korea, India, And maybe Australia who really run the East Asian world. I think middle eastern conflict will take a while, because I think borders are going to change so much on this one saying any one nation will take the region is like saying the Normans will rule Europe.

Korea's demographics aren't any different from Japan's or China's, so if they're going to collapse due to demographics, Korea would too.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Korea's demographics aren't any different from Japan's or China's, so if they're going to collapse due to demographics, Korea would too.

The difference is that Korea isn't already at max capacity economically. China and Japan are fully involved in an interdependent relationship with the rest of the world. Korea has started, but they're not nearly as overwrought as the other two. They might not make it because of demography, but I think they've got a lot more wiggle room than Japan. China is laughable and their labor situation is a farce.

So, you're claiming that still half-rural China is maxed out economically, while SK still has room to expand beyond China and Japan? While there are things that SK could eventually gain when and if it finally absorbs NK, there are a lot of things that would have to happen between now and then, and there would be a huge drag on the economy in the shortrun, even if there was no violence involved. No, I don't think you know what you are talking about.

You should really look into the actual numbers behind China's demographic slowdown, and compare them to Japan's and SK's at the same stage of development. I'll post some figures when I get off work and have access to a computer.

It's the GINI, dude. If you've got a high GINI, it's a strong sign that your economy can't self sustain if the status quo is disrupted in terms of trade. Plus, while South Korea exports more than it imports, it's much closer than China, meaning that, when pinched, they can pick up most of their own slack in theory (naturally occurring trade imbalances happen).

Basically, when you have a your economic core with a declining population, you're going to have a deflation driven environment. South Korea is going to be in a better position to deal with that than China, mostly because they're not going to be as reliant on foreign income to turn their gears. South Korea can, for the most part, turn it's own gears.

Words fail. SK. (pop. 50 million​)) is going to exceed China. (pop 1.3 billion) because of the spending power of their domestic market? That's even more retarded than your idea of an impending Millennial fascist party that's going to implement your preferred policies, like forcing women out of the workforce and abolishing state governments.

You understand that GINIs aren't fixed, right? They can and do fluctuate with government policy and the state of asset markets. Germany has an even better GINI score, as does much of Northern Europe, but since Germany exports equal 50% of its GDP, its ability to"turn its own gears" is somewhat limited.

I mean, let's put a few figures up.

South Korea GDP: Nominal: $1.449 trillion (2014)
Imports: $516.6 billion (8th; 2013 est.)
Exports: $557.3 billion (7th; 2013 est.)

China GDP:$10.355 trillion (nominal; 2014 est.)
Imports: $1.96 trillion (2014^[10])
Exports: $2.34 trillion (2014^[10])

South Korea Gini score: 31.0
China Gini score: 0.469


Historical US Gini Scores (there is some variation on this, so feel free to quibble, but the point stands):



Historical Country Gini Scores:





So, uhm, please tell me how South Korea is less exposed to global trade than China, with imports and exports both over a third of GDP compared to China's 20% (give or take a few), and where you are getting this weird gini score rule of development from? What do you think the US' gini score looked like during the Gilded Age, when it was industrializing? Victorian Britain's?

Okay, look at what I'm predicting: a massive reorganization of the economic order. What do you think happens when that occurs? I'm pretty sure that means slow downs and stops in trade while the situation resolves. So what causes a resolution? It's the nations that can most quickly reorganize. A moderate or low GINI in an industrialized nation implies that. I don't think China has the capacity to reorganize quickly, and it is a race, because reorganization comes with revaluation. I really don't think the US has the capacity to reorganize quickly in its current format.

Meanwhile you laugh at the idea that the US could become a totalitarian state, but why? We've single other nation under a presidential system has become that what makes the US special?

You laugh at the idea that we would eliminate state and local governments, but what good are they doing? We're seeing a push for national standards for police and for courts, and the majority of the policing agenda has been set by jumping through hoops for federal money for decades. At this point the state and local governments are largely bankrupt library systems that double as middle men for distributing federal funds.

You laugh at the idea that women might be excused from the work place, but why is that such a foreign concept? Gendered division of labor has been on going for thousands of years. Automation is going to continually dilute our need for labor. The labor participation rate is in decline. It will continue to decline. We're going to have to have a means of dividing up the labor pool effectively so that a certain amount of people just don't enter, because otherwise, we'll wind up diluting the value of labor so much the money earned isn't enough to buy the products created.

I think you like to write off other people's predictions as wishful thinking far too readily. What I want to do? I'd like to envision I'm going to live in a world with a 10 hour work week, and where I play Worlds of Magic more than I do most other things. I also know that's just flat out unlikely, and what I'm preparing for is the inevitability that I'm going to be financially responsible for my parents and my in laws and possibly a good chunk of my brothers' and sister's families as well.

We've had 500ish years of unbridled growth. I think we're probably due for a down shift.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Okay, look at what I'm predicting: a massive reorganization of the economic order. What do you think happens when that occurs? I'm pretty sure that means slow downs and stops in trade while the situation resolves. So what causes a resolution? It's the nations that can most quickly reorganize. A moderate or low GINI in an industrialized nation implies that. I don't think China has the capacity to reorganize quickly, and it is a race, because reorganization comes with revaluation. I really don't think the US has the capacity to reorganize quickly in its current format.

The Gini coefficient (also known as the Gini index or Gini ratio) (/dʒini/ jee-nee) is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income distribution of a nation's residents, and is the most commonly used measure of inequality. (wikipedia). Although I don't think the GINI is accurate from what I've seen, it is a good point.

Meanwhile you laugh at the idea that the US could become a totalitarian state, but why? We've single other nations under a presidential system have become that; what makes the US special?

No laughing matter indeed. Legally at least, we are well on our way since 9-11. Another unscrupulous cabal like the Bush/Cheney crowd could act on this foundation and take us further down that road.

You laugh at the idea that we would eliminate state and local governments, but what good are they doing? We're seeing a push for national standards for police and for courts, and the majority of the policing agenda has been set by jumping through hoops for federal money for decades. At this point the state and local governments are largely bankrupt library systems that double as middle men for distributing federal funds.

You are exaggerating; you've never done THAT before!

At this point, I thank the Lord for state and local governments; there are a few who act in the current vaccuum of corrupt and greed-driven federal power. New York's governor banned fracking and introduced good gun control. That shows a state government acting where the Republican-ideologically-driven feds will not. CA is forging ahead on solar energy while the feds fiddle around as the Earth burns. And if you don't live in a strong true-blue state, forget the benefits of Obamacare. There's many more examples. Smaller government is better in some ways, because it's more pliable and accessible.

You laugh at the idea that women might be excused from the work place, but why is that such a foreign concept? Gendered division of labor has been on going for thousands of years. Automation is going to continually dilute our need for labor. The labor participation rate is in decline. It will continue to decline. We're going to have to have a means of dividing up the labor pool effectively so that a certain amount of people just don't enter, because otherwise, we'll wind up diluting the value of labor so much the money earned isn't enough to buy the products created.

It's a good point, but I don't see why you pick on women. In our day and age, we realize that women are just as valuable as men in the workplace. Sexism is passe, and feminism is the rule. If all women don't need to work, that is also true of all men. So, another solution is needed to the declining need for labor. I have mentioned the solutions, and again below.

I think you like to write off other people's predictions as wishful thinking far too readily. What I want to do? I'd like to envision I'm going to live in a world with a 10 hour work week, and where I play Worlds of Magic more than I do most other things. I also know that's just flat out unlikely, and what I'm preparing for is the inevitability that I'm going to be financially responsible for my parents and my in laws and possibly a good chunk of my brothers' and sister's families as well.

Jordan is a virtual troll who just spouts off his insulting rants without any consideration for others.

We've had 500ish years of unbridled growth. I think we're probably due for a down shift.

Probably, but we can mitigate it so that it does not cause as much suffering. #1, reduce inequality by rolling back Reaganomics and trickle-down, anti-government, libertarian free-market social-darwinist nonsense. Once that is done, fewer hours at higher wages can be legislated, so that the bosses who reap all the benefits from automation and don't deserve them don't hog them all for themselves as is currently the case, and a middle class can be recreated. Fair trade instead of free trade may be needed too for a while, if possible. Efficient and innovative use of resources will make it possible for all of us to still live a good life, which is not dependent on greed and excess consumerism, but IS dependent on a sustainable planet, proper city design and alternative energy. Economy and ecology must merge, forever and irrevocably. A shift in values to quality over quantity, fulfillment over money and security, has been ongoing since it started in the Awakening. This shift of values will enable us to live without the consumerist drive for things we don't need in order to keep up with the Joneses and win the rate race. We can do it!

Originally Posted by Kepi

Funny, because I don't think one of the signs I'd crisis ends is when we no longer allow ourselves to be drawn into other people's wars. The old way of thinking is "we need to prevent future holocausts", where I think the new one will be either "we really have no way of knowing what will and will not be a holocaust, and dropping the hammer without evidence makes us the bad guy" or "we really can't afford perpetual conflict".

We'll see. I'm not too optimistic we have gone beyond the need to respond to a foreign threat during a 4T. But one possibility is that the American urge to intervene overseas could play a part in our domestic upheaval at the end of the 4T during the mid 2020s. Anti-war sentiment could help drive the divisions between Americans, as it has since the sixties.

I think this ends with the US dropping Europe from the economic core, leaving Russia to run a decaying, economically non-viable Europe in favor of setting up a new core with other Western Hemisphere nations (Canada, Brazil, and Mexico are the top contenders) to run basically a Western economic world. China and Japan are going to implode due to declining populations, and likely it will be Korea, India, And maybe Australia who really run the East Asian world. I think middle eastern conflict will take a while, because I think borders are going to change so much on this one saying any one nation will take the region is like saying the Normans will rule Europe.

The USA does not have the power to "drop Europe from the economic core." Europe is a major center of economic power; it will recover and remain a leader because its social and environmental policies are on a much better track than America's, and because it has learned the advantage that America enjoys of a central bank.

Russia itself is decaying because of its perpetually-poor leadership. It will have to face up to its long tsarist tradition sooner or later, or it will implode from within. Knowing this, the current oligarch/tsar diverts attention from his own failure by stirring up imperialist feeling and fanning the flames in his neighborhood. That will not make Russia a leader of Europe; instead it will foment the most-likely foreign crisis at the end of the 4T throughout the 2020s, leading to its defeat and possible submission to Europe instead.

I don't know if Mexico and Brazil will become prosperous enough to do anything but drag down America further to their level. They have intractible problems. Mexican immigration could decline if some prosperity returns, but it may not.

Declining populations are needed everywhere. It will take readjustment, and cause some economic slowdowns, but will not lead to implosion anywhere. All nations will depopulate to a small degree, and so one nation will not reap the rewards of other nations' declining populations. The USA and India will also start to stabilize and decline in population soon. The planet will benefit. Africa will be the last to slow down, but it has a long way to go to become a dominant power. In the meantime, its growing population could be an economic benefit, if not also a threat to its land, wildlife and resources.

The Middle East depends on young people rising up for freedom instead of turning to jihadism. Peace depends on that as well as settling the unnecessary Israeli-Arab conflict. That will depend on new leadership in Israel, which will take some time apparently. 2017 is a year of some possible breakthroughs, but I expect true peace will not develop in the Middle East for some decades to come. Still, it may be more severe and threatening during this 4T than it will likely be in the 1T. The next Awakening will be like the sixties in many ways, but will be more global in scope.