Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Or, I suppose, both parties are nuts and we're all bubbleheads doomed to die a wretched death.

I can see that.

• Upon the standard to which the wise and honest will now repair it is written: ?You have lived the easy way; henceforth, you will live the hard way?. You came into a great heritage made by the insight and the sweat and the blood of inspired and devoted and courageous men; thoughtlessly and in utmost self-indulgence you have all but squandered this inheritance. Now only by the heroic virtues which made this inheritance can you restore it again?. You took the good things for granted. Now you must earn them again?. For every right that you cherish, you have a duty which you must fulfill. For every hope that you entertain, you have a task that you must perform. For every good that you wish to preserve, you will have to sacrifice your comfort and your ease. There is nothing for nothing any longer.? -- Walter Lippmann, speech to the Harvard Class of 1910 at their thirtieth reunion, June 18, 1940

As history would have it, it would appear that Walter Lippmann had correctly identified the mood of both young and old on the eve of America's entry into world war. Yet, FDR had been saying nearly the same thing for the previous eight years. His New Deal was a "call to arms" in the face of "loose thinking, descending morals, an era of selfishness," in 1932. In the aftermath of instituting the National Recovery Act "production codes," the Civilian Conservation Corps, and a whole host of other federal programs, FDR told an audience of young Democrats:

• I cannot expect you of a newer generation to believe me, of an older generation, if I do not frankly acknowledge that had the generation that brought you into the world been wiser and more provident and more unselfish, you would have been saved from needless difficult problems and needless pain and suffering.

So Lippmann was merely echoing the same themes of the New Deal, on the eve of war in 1940. Honestly, should we be surprised that Roosevelt so easily shifted from New Dealin' at home to New Dealin' abroad?

Yet spin the clock forward, and history now records how young, college-age liberals would have responded to such theme in 1968. "Hell no, we won't go!" was the coveted mantra of that time.

But, in fact, those same themes sounded by FDR and Lippmann were being echoed once again throughout the entire 1970s. The first echo was heard from none other than liberal Washington Post columnist David Broder. He used Lippmann's 1940 quote as a thesis for his 1972 book, The Partys Over. The book's cover featured a drunken donkey and elephant hoisting a few tankards. Docmenting several cycle theories of that time, Broder noted that it had been "forty years since the last realignment in American politics, so it appears we may be ready for a new one in 1972."

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. readily agreed. In his prediction of How McGovern Will Win, Schlesinger wrote:

• If anyone wants historical analogies for McGovern, the appropriate analogy would be not Goldwater in 1964 but Roosevelt in 1932. Forty years ago, as today, the nation was in a state of political and economic frustration. Confronted by stalemate and alienation, Franklin Roosevelt understood the imperative necessity of bringing about a realignment of political and economic forces.

Despite McGovern's historic trouncing in 1972, this "call to sacrifice" continued in the face of the inflationary woes and the energy crisis. In December of 1976, Mo Udall quoted Lippmann in a speech he titled: "Energy, Economics and the Environment: The Old Order is Breaking Down.

And finally, there was Jimmy Carter on the eve of the eighties. Yes, in his famous "malaise speech," Carter noted:

• With these energy and economic policies, we will make America even stronger at home in this decade--just as our foreign and defense policies will make us stronger and safer throughout the world. We will never abandon our struggle for a just and a decent society here at home. That's the heart of America--and it's the source of our ability to inspire other people to defend their own rights abroad.
  
  Our material resources, great as they are, are limited. Our problems are too complex for simple slogans or for quick solutions. We cannot solve them without effort and sacrifice. Walter Lippmann once reminded us, "You took the good things for granted. Now you must earn them again. For every right that you cherish, you have a duty which you must fulfill. For every good which you wish to preserve, you will have to sacrifice your comfort and your ease. There is nothing for nothing any longer."

And what do we continue to hear, post-9/11, from liberals? Thomas Friedman put it best, I think, in the aftermath of our victory in Afganistan:

• There is a deep hunger in America post-Sept. 11 in many people who feel this is their war in their backyard and they would like to be summoned by the president to do something more than go shopping. If you just look at the amount of money spontaneously donated to victims' families, it's clear that there is a deep reservoir of energy out there that could be channeled to become a real force for American renewal and transformation -- and it's not being done. One senses that President Bush is intent on stapling his narrow, hard-right Sept. 10 agenda onto the Sept. 12 world, and that is his and our loss.
  
  Imagine if tomorrow President Bush asked all Americans to turn down their home thermostats to 65 degrees so America would not be so much of a hostage to Middle East oil? Trust me, every American would turn down the thermostat to 65 degrees.
  
  Liberating us from the grip of OPEC would be our Victory Garden.
  
  Imagine if the president announced a Manhattan Project to make us energy independent in a decade, on the basis of domestic oil, improved mileage standards and renewable resources, so we Americans, who are 5 percent of the world's population, don't continue hogging 25 percent of the world's energy?
  
  Imagine if the president called on every young person to consider enlisting in some form of service -- the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, Peace Corps, Teach For America, AmeriCorps, the F.B.I., the C.I.A.? People would enlist in droves.
  
  Imagine if the president called on every corporate chieftain to take a 10 percent pay cut, starting with himself, so fewer employees would have to be laid off? Plenty would do it.
  
  Imagine if the president called on every U.S. school to raise money to buy solar-powered light bulbs for every village in Africa that didn't have electricity so African kids could read at night?

Obviously Bush is not listening to liberals like Thomas Friedman. Which bring me to my whole point regarding this history of guilt, sacrifice and public policy:

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I said that the military is a conservative institution. I also implied that the conservative party liked to trot out military heroes to win elections.

My only question is why do you liberal have such fixation on guilt and sacrifice while "loathing the military" so? Why do you liberals have such a fixation on the "institution" of the military that you find yourselves wishing to emulate its principles at every turn of the thermostat here at home?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

My only question is why do you liberal have such fixation on guilt and sacrifice while "loathing the military" so? Why do you liberals have such a fixation on the "institution" of the military that you find yourselves wishing to emulate its principles at every turn of the thermostat here at home?

I can write questions like this too:

Why do you conservatives so value dodging responsiblity at high levels while loathing the poor for doing the same? Why do you hurl invective at the media and Hollywood, when you worship (and seek to emulate) their craft? After all, the biggest icon of your party was a product of Hollywood.

All they do is stir up rancor and demonstrate that you have no useful or interesting insights to contribute, merely bile.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

My only question is why do you liberal have such fixation on guilt and sacrifice while "loathing the military" so? Why do you liberals have such a fixation on the "institution" of the military that you find yourselves wishing to emulate its principles at every turn of the thermostat here at home?

Now that's an interesting comment, for its utter fatuousness. You cite Bill Clinton, the closest thing to a Republican ever elected as a Democrat, and use his disdain for military service as an exemplar of liberal thought. Well goody for you.

If you do a quick review of who served and who didn't - in other words, those willing to sacrifice - youll generate a list of liberals and conservatives from which George W. Bush is suspiciously absent. This is exactly his 'shop for America' program viewed in personal terms. In short, let the little people sacrifice.

In fact, that's exactly what Leona Helmsley said about taxes. It must run in George's class.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I can write questions like this too:

Why do you conservatives so value dodging responsiblity at high levels while loathing the poor for doing the same? Why do you hurl invective at the media and Hollywood, when you worship (and seek to emulate) their craft? After all, the biggest icon of your party was a product of Hollywood.

All they do is stir up rancor and demonstrate that you have no useful or interesting insights to contribute, merely bile.

Agreed... and make that two of the biggest icons, what with Arnold being so fabulous and all.

Originally Posted by That Man

Fifteen years ago my public duty called me to an active part in a great national emergency, the World War. Success then was due to a leadership whose vision carried beyond the timorous and futile gesture of sending a tiny army of 150,000 trained soldiers and the regular navy to the aid of our allies. The generalship of that moment conceived of a whole Nation mobilized for war, economic, industrial, social and military resources gathered into a vast unit capable of and actually in the process of throwing into the scales ten million men equipped with physical needs and sustained by the realization that behind them were the united efforts of 110,000,000 human beings. It was a great plan because it was built from bottom to top and not from top to bottom.


In my calm judgment, the Nation faces today a more grave emergency than in 1917.


It is said that Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo because he forgot his infantry--he staked too much upon the more spectacular but less substantial cavalry. The present administration in Washington provides a close parallel. It has either forgotten or it does not want to remember the infantry of our economic army.


These unhappy times call for the building of plans that rest upon the forgotten, the unorganized but the indispensable units of economic power, for plans like those of 1917 that build from the bottom up and not from the top down, that put their faith once more in the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid.

FDR campaigned against Hoover by taking a sound money, small government stance against a spendthrift government. He was as honest as our present POTUS was on "building nations", "modesty" in foreign policy. Politicians are known to prevaricate. FDR was against federal programs before he was for federal programs. He flip-flopped like a cousin of Napoleon would be expected to do. :wink:

I could have just as easily used a multitude of antimilitary quotes from the latest liberal to toss his hat into the "Commander in Chief" sweepstakes. It's just more of the same "loathing," to me.

The fact is liberals don't make very good Commander in Chiefs. Free and open elections have a way of ferreting out that fact, no matter what born-again experience -- "Reporting for duty, sir!" -- the liberal claims. While I can certainly understand that killing another human being, even in defense, is something one should do only reluctantly, this is not liberals problem at all. How could it be? Simply because a woman decides what lives in her belly isn't human liberals defend her right to kill it, even at the point of full term.

Am I stirring up more rancor, and demonstrating that I have no useful or interesting insights to contribute, merely bile, by pointing this out? Of course I am. Isn't that what Act Up, Michael Moore, Moveon.org, and the soon to be chairman of the DNC, Howard Dean, does whenever they open their mouth's?

Of course, we in "Ohio" think a bit differently than those blessed liberals. Right, Mr. Horn? 8)

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I could have just as easily used a multitude of antimilitary quotes from the latest liberal to toss his hat into the "Commander in Chief" sweepstakes. It's just more of the same "loathing," to me.

The fact is liberals don't make very good Commander in Chiefs. Free and open elections have a way of ferreting out that fact, no matter what born-again experience -- "Reporting for duty, sir!" -- the liberal claims. While I can certainly understand that killing another human being, even in defense, is something one should do only reluctantly, this is not liberals problem at all. How could it be? Simply because a woman decides what lives in her belly isn't human liberals defend her right to kill it, even at the point of full term.

I guess you find that more repugnant than killing living, breathing, full-sentient human beings, as the then Texas governor GWB did on 150 occassions.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Am I stirring up more rancor, and demonstrating that I have no useful or interesting insights to contribute, merely bile, by pointing this out? Of course I am. Isn't that what Act Up, Michael Moore, Moveon.org, and the soon to be chairman of the DNC, Howard Dean, does whenever they open their mouth's?

Bilious political behavior was raised to an art form long before any individual or organization on your short-list rose into public view. If non-Faux reportage is too be believed, some of the early practioners are addicts of sex, gambling or drugs. Others merely lie. I've also heard that accepting bribes is an accepted practice in socially conservative circles.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Of course, we in "Ohio" think a bit differently than those blessed liberals. Right, Mr. Horn? 8)

I suspect so.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

The fact is liberals don't make very good Commander in Chiefs... While I can certainly understand that killing another human being, even in defense, is something one should do only reluctantly, this is not liberals problem at all. How could it be? Simply because a woman decides what lives in her belly isn't human liberals defend her right to kill it, even at the point of full term.

I guess you find that more repugnant than killing living, breathing, full-sentient human beings, as the then Texas governor GWB did on 150 occassions.

You would exempt the two "living, breathing, full-sentient human beings" who giddily chained and drug the body of James Byrd behind their pickup truck, until he was dead, from that long list of course. :wink:

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

The fact is liberals don't make very good Commander in Chiefs... While I can certainly understand that killing another human being, even in defense, is something one should do only reluctantly, this is not liberals problem at all. How could it be? Simply because a woman decides what lives in her belly isn't human liberals defend her right to kill it, even at the point of full term.

I guess you find that more repugnant than killing living, breathing, full-sentient human beings, as the then Texas governor GWB did on 150 occassions.

You would exempt the two "living, breathing, full-sentient human beings" who giddily chained and drug the body of James Byrd behind their pickup truck, until he was dead, from that long list of course. :wink:

No, I wouldn't. Life in prison with no chance of parole is a long and onerous punishment - much worse than a quick gurney ride to the death house. It also leaves open the possibility that the innocent may go free. Its a win-win.

I'm sure you oppose executing the innocent just because they were 'found guilty by a jury of their peers'. You don't really need to have the hand-of-God retribution for 'closure', do you?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

One of the themes I advance is the idea of a "stealth 4T". There is nothing in S&H that indicates that a turning change should be evident in real time. All previous turnings have been identified in retrospect. Take the last crisis. S&H have it start with a stock market crash. That is nothing special, we had a bigger crash in 1987 and that didn't denote a turning change. The crash was followed by a depression in the industrial economy. This depression was long (43 months) but no where near as long as the 1873-79 depression (65 months). Both depressions showed roughly similar severity in the industrial economy, the 1929-1933 depression had a bigger impact on the economy as a whole because just about the whole economy was industrial in the 1930's as compared to a small fraction in the 1870's. So there is a severity factor.

But what made the 1930's really different was the fact that the country did not emerge from bad times in the subsequent expansion. At the crest of this expansion in 1937, unemployment was still above the level normally seen at depression bottoms. This was unprecented, a "depression" that lasts through an entire business cycle and into the next recession. Truly what happened after 1929 can be called the Great Depression. But it wasn't clear until after 1937 that there was going to be a Great Depression. Only by then was it clear, in retrospect, that something unique had happened.

One can imagine a 1933 equivalent of Sean Love arguing that we haven't had the doozy factor yet since longer depressions (1873-9) have happened before during a High for Pete's sake, all the post-1929 fallout (so far) represents is a strong 3T reaction. However, dooziness was coming due to FDR's reckless fiscal policies.

I like the "for Pete's sake" comment, considering my avatar. But I am not sure you meant the connection. :wink:

Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike. The Sean Love of 1933 would be FREAKED OUT. You're correct insomuch as the "me" of, say, 1931, would still likely be a fence sitter. The depression of 1920 was far more intense in terms of the rate of contraction. But by 1933 we had 25% unemployment and no recovery in sight. Furthermore, (assuming we knew about saecular theory at the time) I'd be saying that the social order was in severe crisis and would probably either be saying that at least our "realization" of economic calamity was the start of the crisis, if not the Crash of '29 (in all honesty I'd have to say either option). On top of that I'd be actively looking for signs of an opening 4T cascade because of the saecular timing.

As I hope you know, I am not categorically dismissing your "Stealth 4T" concept, nor have I ever. Categorically dismissing you is not wise (the Trog is a different matter). I am open to the possibility that 9/11/01 will be seen as the trigger (wrongly, or even rightly) in the future. And as you and others have made clear, there are examples in history of relatively "non-doozy" openings to 4T's. Your "hegemon" angle is another thing to consider.

It's just that when all is said and done I am not currently in agreement with you. Your arguments are compelling, and quite possibly correct, but on balance I'm not convinced.

In one sense John K. is right, as he's posted elsewhere, that it ultimately doesn't matter whether the 4T began in 2000, 2001, 2005, or 2007. It could be argued that for the most part it is an esoteric discussion. But my sense is that it is an important distinction for someone very interested in history.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

But there is another reason for the idea of a stealth 4T. This is the competitive observer feedback effect or what George Soros calls "reflexivity". These refer to the tendency for human beings to anticipate the future and modify their behavior accordingly. To the extent that today's behavior causes the future, this means that "what happens depends on what happens", that is the future feedbacks onto the present helping to give birth to itself. This is "reflexivity". It is similar to what Douglas Hofstadter referred to as "strange loops" in his book Godel Escher Bach.

It follows from the principle of reflexivity that the future is indeterminate, since knowledge about the futrue would change present behavior, thus changing what the future will be to something different from what it was originally going to be. It is like the time travel paradox.

Another interesting take: On the very early (1997) T4T board there was a fella name Steve Philpot who asked "what would happen if the cycle became self-aware?". That is, what if a critical mass of society became aware of S&H's theory? Bill Strauss refered to this at the time as the "Philpot Conundrum".

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

For example, John X has been caling for a major stock market decline because of above trend valuations. He is right, it is obvious that a major decline is in the works. Back in late 1996 many bearish commentators were calling for a major decline for the same reasons. They were right too, it was obvious that a major declince was in the works. In fact, no less an authority than Alan Greenspan spoke out on this issue with his famous Irrational Exuberance speech in December 1996.

And the forecasted decline came to pass; the stock market as measured by the benchmarket S&P500 index, fell 50%. The high-flying NASDAQ stocks fell even harder. However, this does not mean that heeding the Chairman in 1996 would have been a great strategy. Let's compare a prudent investor to a "bubblehead". The prudent investor, heeding the Chairman, shifted from an S&P50 index fund to a money market fund in December 1996, where has had obtained a safe return of 3.5% in the 8+ years since then. The bubblehead left his money in the index fund, where it languishes today. Yet his return over this same 8+ year period has been just over 7%, twice the return of his prudent colleague, despite the crash. As a result the bubblehead's 401(k) is worth 30% more than the prudent investor, despite the reckless choice of riding it out.

What happened? The forecasted crash did occur, but it did so in a way that made it impossible for a prudent investor to take advantage of the forecast. This is a direct example of how reflexivity works. The market advanced beyond the Dec 1996 levels, because today's knowledge of the good returns available after that date fed back into investor beliefs in Dec 1996, causing the very "irrational exuberance" to which the Chairman called attention.

How did those investors in 1996 know to be exuberant? Consciously, of course, they didn't know. But unconsciously they did. It is the unconscious behavior of masses of people that produces the cycles we discuss here. We can say that the refusal of investors to heed the Chairman may reflect the saeculum--it was too early for a 4T, the generational constellation was not right and so the 3T irrational exuberance had to continue. Indeed, there was a popular narrative produced by Harry Dent which applied this very sort of saecular thinking to the stock market and which forecast the continuation of the bull market to the 2007-2010 period--after which a depression would. That is, a repeat of the last crisis, eighty years later, was in store.

Dent's forecast made use of 20-year generations, because this is the length S&H favor. It follows directly from their concept of a Civil War Anomaly. There is an alternate interpretation of 18-year generations, which would call for Dent's peak to happen around 2000. Like Dent's spending wave, thihs model can be combined with a novel valuation metric (P/R) that called for a market peak in 1999.

Imagine a prudent investor, who heeding the signal of P/R and the 18-year generation model, moved from the index fund to the money market in December 1998. Since then his money marekt investment woud have earned a measly 3%. Now consider the bubblehead, who following Dent's narrative remained in the stock fund after December 1998 to this very day. He would have earned a 0.6% return. In this case the prudent investor has 15% more money than the bubblehead.

What happened? Here today's knowledge of the poor returns available from investments in 1999 and 2000 fed back to investors of that time, creating more prudent investors and fewer bubbleheads. In 2000, the market finally ran out of bubbleheads and the decline began., years after the prudent investors of 1996 had expected, but years before the Dentians believed.

But Dent's narrative is not yet dead. Jim Goulding for one favors it. And since this narrarive is closely joined with the "we be 3T" narrative, it has a lot of support. Enough support that prospects for stocks may be far more bullish than what valuation arguments like those of John X would forecast. Remember, people do not have to consciously know what a 3T is in order to be able to act on the belief that "we be 3T". The belief is subconscious.

Right now on Prudent Bear they're debating whether we're in a secular bear market or not (guess which way they lean :wink: ). I find it interesting that the Dow hit a record high in 1972 at a time we now know in retrospect to be inside a secular bear. That means the 1966 start would not have been really obvious until 1974. Furthermore, some saw the start of a secular bull at that time, but it would take a few years in the later part of the decade to realize that '74 was not significant in terms of secular change.

IOW, this stuff is indeed very hard to call in real time.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

My only question is why do you liberal have such fixation on guilt and sacrifice while "loathing the military" so? Why do you liberals have such a fixation on the "institution" of the military that you find yourselves wishing to emulate its principles at every turn of the thermostat here at home?

Now that's an interesting comment, for its utter fatuousness. You cite Bill Clinton, the closest thing to a Republican ever elected as a Democrat, and use his disdain for military service as an exemplar of liberal thought. Well goody for you.

If you do a quick review of who served and who didn't - in other words, those willing to sacrifice - youll generate a list of liberals and conservatives from which George W. Bush is suspiciously absent. This is exactly his 'shop for America' program viewed in personal terms. In short, let the little people sacrifice.

In fact, that's exactly what Leona Helmsley said about taxes. It must run in George's class.

Troll-feeding is bad for your health.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike. The Sean Love of 1933 would be FREAKED OUT. You're correct insomuch as the "me" of, say, 1931, would still likely be a fence sitter. The depression of 1920 was far more intense in terms of the rate of contraction. But by 1933 we had 25% unemployment and no recovery in sight.

Yes 1873 all over again. In the urban areas unemployment during the great depression of 1873-79 did reach a third. Across the largely nonurban America as a whole it was much lower.

Furthermore, (assuming we knew about saecular theory at the time) I'd be saying that the social order was in severe crisis and would probably either be saying that at least our "realization" of economic calamity was the start of the crisis, if not the Crash of '29 (in all honesty I'd have to say either option). On top of that I'd be actively looking for signs of an opening 4T cascade because of the saecular timing.

No, 1929 was way too early for a crisis, it would be the equivalent of the crisis hitting in 1998. One would expect the crisis around 1950 or so.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Right now on Prudent Bear they're debating whether we're in a secular bear market or not (guess which way they lean :wink: ). I find it interesting that the Dow hit a record high in 1972 at a time we now know in retrospect to be inside a secular bear. That means the 1966 start would not have been really obvious until 1974. Furthermore, some saw the start of a secular bull at that time, but it would take a few years in the later part of the decade to realize that '74 was not significant in terms of secular change.

1974 wasn't the start of a secular bull market. In real terms the 1982 low was below that of 1974, making 1982 the start of the secular bear market.

Some commentators still stick with the 1974 date, focusing on the nominal data, but most go with 1982.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Furthermore, (assuming we knew about saecular theory at the time) I'd be saying that the social order was in severe crisis and would probably either be saying that at least our "realization" of economic calamity was the start of the crisis, if not the Crash of '29 (in all honesty I'd have to say either option). On top of that I'd be actively looking for signs of an opening 4T cascade because of the saecular timing.

No, 1929 was way too early for a crisis, it would be the equivalent of the crisis hitting in 1998. One would expect the crisis around 1950 or so.

Huh? :?: :?: :?: :?

Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Furthermore, (assuming we knew about saecular theory at the time) I'd be saying that the social order was in severe crisis and would probably either be saying that at least our "realization" of economic calamity was the start of the crisis, if not the Crash of '29 (in all honesty I'd have to say either option). On top of that I'd be actively looking for signs of an opening 4T cascade because of the saecular timing.

No, 1929 was way too early for a crisis, it would be the equivalent of the crisis hitting in 1998. One would expect the crisis around 1950 or so.

Huh? :?: :?: :?: :?

You are looking with hindsight. In 1933, the previous crises were spaced 110, 106, 98, and 87 years apart. These spacings average 100 years so you might look for the next 4T 100 years after the last one or in about 1960. Alternately, you might note that the spacings are showing a steady decline and extrapolate the current length to 81 years, which would put it in 1941. So you would look for the next crisis to start in the 1941-1960 time frame or "about 1950". There could be no Civil War anomaly because until the next crisis was determined to have begun in 1929, there was no anomalous shortening to be explained.

S&H, working in the late 1980's, could clearly see that there was a crisis that began around 1930 and an Awakening that began in the late 1960's. They could do this because they were observing these periods with decades of hindsight (that the 1933 observer lacks). They could see that the spacing of crises simply wasn't 100 years any more (which the 1933 observer can't be certain of). In fact, since they did not include either the War of the Roses or the Armada Crises in their initial work, the spacing they were dealing with was 98, 87, 69 ... which averages 85 years, hence they describe the length of the saeculum as 80-90 years and developed a theoretical model that called for an 88-year average length.

Using the 85 year ruler the Depression Crisis should have started around 1945 instead of 1929. Obviously, it started anomolously early. When you couple this observation with the fact that it is hard to see a generation associated with the Civil War that compares to the Republicans or the GIs in terms of secular accomplishment, the result is the Civil War Anomaly. The dropping of generation then gives rise to a "runt" crisis only five years long and three normal length (20-22 years) turnings to give a spacing between the Civil War and the Depresion of 69 years

But an observer in 1933 would not expect that an anomaly had happened in the Civil War because he would be (as yet) unaware that the saeculum had shortened. So he woulld not look for such an anomaly and would be left dealing with two hypothese (1) the saeculum hans't shortened, in which case the crisis should come in ~1960, or (2) the saeculum has been shortenng in which case the crisis should come in around 1940. We face the same sort of question today.

What I am getting at is all the arguments using generational constellations and such that people make to say that it is too early for a crisis in 2001 would also have been made in 1933 to say the same thing about 1929.

Pter Gibbons wrote: 'nother interesting take: On the very early (1997) T4T board there was a fella name Steve Philpot who asked "what would happen if the cycle became self-aware?". That is, what if a critical mass of society became aware of S&H's theory? Bill Strauss refered to this at the time as the "Philpot Conundrum". '

Michael Flynn also addressed that in his novel (then near-future science fiction, now a contemporary thriller) "Country of the Blind". After the dust settled, the various offshoots of the Babbage Society went into the prediction business publically and made a fair decent living at it. And (see also his 4T series FIRESTAR etc) the cycle went on its merry way.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike. The Sean Love of 1933 would be FREAKED OUT. You're correct insomuch as the "me" of, say, 1931, would still likely be a fence sitter. The depression of 1920 was far more intense in terms of the rate of contraction. But by 1933 we had 25% unemployment and no recovery in sight.

Yes 1873 all over again. In the urban areas unemployment during the great depression of 1873-79 did reach a third. Across the largely nonurban America as a whole it was much lower.

Yes, and the unprecedented carnage (from the English POV) of the English Civil War occured at the end of a 2T. That's fine. But the Depression of the 1870's did not occur toward the end of a 3T, it was, as you know, a 1T (actually, now that I think of it, you might define it was the end of a 4T. Do you?- serious question). It is not the dooziness in and of itself I'm talking about here Mike. It's that it happens at the point of the 4T opening, and that it involve deeper issues of fundamental Social Order collapse and rebirth.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Furthermore, (assuming we knew about saecular theory at the time) I'd be saying that the social order was in severe crisis and would probably either be saying that at least our "realization" of economic calamity was the start of the crisis, if not the Crash of '29 (in all honesty I'd have to say either option). On top of that I'd be actively looking for signs of an opening 4T cascade because of the saecular timing.

No, 1929 was way too early for a crisis, it would be the equivalent of the crisis hitting in 1998. One would expect the crisis around 1950 or so.

Based on the generational alignments 1929 was on time or even a smidgin late. Generational compaction explains why 4T's grew closer to one another (in my book anyway).

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Right now on Prudent Bear they're debating whether we're in a secular bear market or not (guess which way they lean :wink: ). I find it interesting that the Dow hit a record high in 1972 at a time we now know in retrospect to be inside a secular bear. That means the 1966 start would not have been really obvious until 1974. Furthermore, some saw the start of a secular bull at that time, but it would take a few years in the later part of the decade to realize that '74 was not significant in terms of secular change.

1974 wasn't the start of a secular bull market. In real terms the 1982 low was below that of 1974, making 1982 the start of the secular bear market.

Some commentators still stick with the 1974 date, focusing on the nominal data, but most go with 1982.

I didn't say 1974 was the start of the secular bull market. I said some at the time may have thought so, but a few years later they would realize it was not.

And I was not aware anyone goes with 1974 as secularly important markety-wise (other than 73-74 being the sharpest sell-off of the bear). I thought everyone went with 1982. It seems pretty obvious, even to a layman's layman's layman like me. 8)

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Furthermore, (assuming we knew about saecular theory at the time) I'd be saying that the social order was in severe crisis and would probably either be saying that at least our "realization" of economic calamity was the start of the crisis, if not the Crash of '29 (in all honesty I'd have to say either option). On top of that I'd be actively looking for signs of an opening 4T cascade because of the saecular timing.

No, 1929 was way too early for a crisis, it would be the equivalent of the crisis hitting in 1998. One would expect the crisis around 1950 or so.

Huh? :?: :?: :?: :?

You are looking with hindsight. In 1933, the previous crises were spaced 110, 106, 98, and 87 years apart. These spacings average 100 years so you might look for the next 4T 100 years after the last one or in about 1960. Alternately, you might note that the spacings are showing a steady decline and extrapolate the current length to 81 years, which would put it in 1941. So you would look for the next crisis to start in the 1941-1960 time frame or "about 1950". There could be no Civil War anomaly because until the next crisis was determined to have begun in 1929, there was no anomalous shortening to be explained.

S&H, working in the late 1980's, could clearly see that there was a crisis that began around 1930 and an Awakening that began in the late 1960's. They could do this because they were observing these periods with decades of hindsight (that the 1933 observer lacks). They could see that the spacing of crises simply wasn't 100 years any more (which the 1933 observer can't be certain of). In fact, since they did not include either the War of the Roses or the Armada Crises in their initial work, the spacing they were dealing with was 98, 87, 69 ... which averages 85 years, hence they describe the length of the saeculum as 80-90 years and developed a theoretical model that called for an 88-year average length.

Using the 85 year ruler the Depression Crisis should have started around 1945 instead of 1929. Obviously, it started anomolously early. When you couple this observation with the fact that it is hard to see a generation associated with the Civil War that compares to the Republicans or the GIs in terms of secular accomplishment, the result is the Civil War Anomaly. The dropping of generation then gives rise to a "runt" crisis only five years long and three normal length (20-22 years) turnings to give a spacing between the Civil War and the Depresion of 69 years

But an observer in 1933 would not expect that an anomaly had happened in the Civil War because he would be (as yet) unaware that the saeculum had shortened. So he woulld not look for such an anomaly and would be left dealing with two hypothese (1) the saeculum hans't shortened, in which case the crisis should come in ~1960, or (2) the saeculum has been shortenng in which case the crisis should come in around 1940. We face the same sort of question today.

What I am getting at is all the arguments using generational constellations and such that people make to say that it is too early for a crisis in 2001 would also have been made in 1933 to say the same thing about 1929.

But again, if one believes in generational compaction and was witnessing the generations shortening in the several decades leading into the early 20th century, then 1929 would not have been that big a surprise.

Originally Posted by Idiot Girl

Pter Gibbons wrote: 'nother interesting take: On the very early (1997) T4T board there was a fella name Steve Philpot who asked "what would happen if the cycle became self-aware?". That is, what if a critical mass of society became aware of S&H's theory? Bill Strauss refered to this at the time as the "Philpot Conundrum". '

Michael Flynn also addressed that in his novel (then near-future science fiction, now a contemporary thriller) "Country of the Blind". After the dust settled, the various offshoots of the Babbage Society went into the prediction business publically and made a fair decent living at it. And (see also his 4T series FIRESTAR etc) the cycle went on its merry way.

I googled about this. Interesting. But in the Philpot Conundrum it is society at large that knows the general direction we are heading (saecularly). Would that end the cycle, make it worse, or something else entirely? :shock:

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Yes, and the unprecedented carnage (from the English POV) of the English Civil War occured at the end of a 2T. That's fine. But the Depression of the 1870's did not occur toward the end of a 3T, it was, as you know, a 1T (actually, now that I think of it, you might define it was the end of a 4T. Do you?- serious question).

Yes

It is not the dooziness in and of itself I'm talking about here Mike. It's that it happens at the point of the 4T opening, and that it involve deeper issues of fundamental Social Order collapse and rebirth.

Here you are arguing circularly. You define "dooziness" as a criterion for a 4T, but then you specific that the dooziness has to happened at the start of a 4T. So what you are saying is the beginning of a 4T is characterized by being the beginning of a 4T.

Based on the generational alignments 1929 was on time or even a smidgin late.

No! Once again you are arguing circularly. The generations you are using to locate a turning change in 1929 are themselves based on 1929 being the turning change. By definition, the hero gen is the generation in rising adulthood during the crisis. Given a crisis in the 1929-1946 period the generation in their active years would be born some 20-25 years before this.

For example, suppose the present crisis begins in 2019, 90 years after the last one. This saeculum length is within the 80-90 year range S&H discuss and fits in well with the "Crisis of 2020" that they discussed in Generations. Subtracting 3 years from 2019 we would put the end of the Millies in 2016. A Millie generation born over 1982-2016 is simply way too big. Someone born in 1982 will hardly be playing a rising adult role in the crisis. What makes sense would be to move up the GenX/Millie divider from 1981/82 to somethng like 1989-90. Suppose the great leader that deals with the crisis was born in 1968. In this case one might draw the generations as follows:

Silent 1925-1942
Boom 1943-1968
GenX 1969-1989
Millie 1990-2016

Using these dates it is clear that we are no where near the crisis today because the youngest Boomers are only 37 (hardly elders). Now you may say, wait a minute this makes me a Boomer, no way! Yes way, because it doesn't matter what you think, the historian who is drawing these boundaries lives in 2076 and you are long gone.

Remember turnings are historical divisions made by future observers who know what happened in our future, because it is their past. What makes 911 significant or the 1929 crash significant isn't the event themselves. It is what happens afterward as interpreted from a sufficiently distant future viewpoint. Part of what makes the 1929-1946 period a crisis is the High that followed.

WW II so radically changed our government and society that ever after we talk about postwar and prewar being completely different eras. The sense that "the worm turned" after 1945 was apparent fairly shortly afterward. This makes 1945 a palpable boundary. But the war wasn't the only thing. There was this unsually long and servere depression before that also stands tall in memory. This depression started in summer 1929. By 1961 it was pretty clear that the 1929-1945 period was radically different from the 16 years that followed or the 16 years that preceded it.

It is the obvious (to a future observer) 1929-45 crisis period that pegs the end of the hero gen in the mid 1920's. It can't be much later than that or earlier than that. Had the Depression and WW II happened ten years later, S&H would have drawn the GI generation later, it certainly would not start in 1901. And if the GI's are moved up so would the Lost and Missionaries then there would be room for a Civil War Hero generation and the turnings and generations might look something like this:

1860-1877 (C) 1843-1859 (Civil War Heroes)
1877-1900 (H) 1860-1878 (Progressives)
1900-1919 (A) 1879-1898 (MIssionaries)
1919-1939 (U) 1899-1916 (Lost)
1939-1956 (C) 1917-1936 (GI)

And with these generations, the constellation would NOT be aligned in 1929.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

But again, if one believes in generational compaction and was witnessing the generations shortening in the several decades leading into the early 20th century, then 1929 would not have been that big a surprise.

How do you witness generations shortening? There is no direct measure of a generation length. Some folks born in 1987 consider themselves as more X than Millie. Generational boundaries for younger generations depend on what that generation does latter in life. That is, to witness generations shortening is to know the future. But if you know the future, then you know when the 4T will come and there is no need to use a model.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Yes, and the unprecedented carnage (from the English POV) of the English Civil War occured at the end of a 2T. That's fine. But the Depression of the 1870's did not occur toward the end of a 3T, it was, as you know, a 1T (actually, now that I think of it, you might define it was the end of a 4T. Do you?- serious question).

Yes

It is not the dooziness in and of itself I'm talking about here Mike. It's that it happens at the point of the 4T opening, and that it involve deeper issues of fundamental Social Order collapse and rebirth.

Here you are arguing circularly. You define "dooziness" as a criterion for a 4T, but then you specific that the dooziness has to happened at the start of a 4T. So what you are saying is the beginning of a 4T is characterized by being the beginning of a 4T.

No, that's not what I said. Please Mike, read my posts again. I said that dooziness can occur at any time, as with the English Civil War (though I will add now that dooziness is more likely during 4T's). I didn't even say that dooziness was required for the opening of a 4T (see various non-American 4T's). What I said was that in our line dooziness had always accompanied 4T openings (i.e., cascades). That is one reason I lean in the direction that we are currently 3T. There are others.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Based on the generational alignments 1929 was on time or even a smidgin late.

No! Once again you are arguing circularly. The generations you are using to locate a turning change in 1929 are themselves based on 1929 being the turning change. By definition, the hero gen is the generation in rising adulthood during the crisis. Given a crisis in the 1929-1946 period the generation in their active years would be born some 20-25 years before this.

For example, suppose the present crisis begins in 2019, 90 years after the last one. This saeculum length is within the 80-90 year range S&H discuss and fits in well with the "Crisis of 2020" that they discussed in Generations. Subtracting 3 years from 2019 we would put the end of the Millies in 2016. A Millie generation born over 1982-2016 is simply way too big. Someone born in 1982 will hardly be playing a rising adult role in the crisis. What makes sense would be to move up the GenX/Millie divider from 1981/82 to somethng like 1989-90. Suppose the great leader that deals with the crisis was born in 1968. In this case one might draw the generations as follows:

Silent 1925-1942
Boom 1943-1968
GenX 1969-1989
Millie 1990-2016

Using these dates it is clear that we are no where near the crisis today because the youngest Boomers are only 37 (hardly elders). Now you may say, wait a minute this makes me a Boomer, no way! Yes way, because it doesn't matter what you think, the historian who is drawing these boundaries lives in 2076 and you are long gone.

I understand your point, but still disagree. I think it is pretty clear NOW that (Prophet-archetype) Boomers ended with either the 1960 or 1961 cohort. I think it is almost as clear NOW that the Millies' leading edge is somewhere in the ballpark of 1982 [yes the vagaries of the 4T could significantly move this boundary, but right now, it clearly seems to lie there]. Likewise, I think that people who would've had knowledge of S&H's Saeculum would have seen that the generational alignment was roughly ripe for a turning change c. 1930.

So I don't see my arguments as circular or self-referencing. But I can see how you do based on your premises.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Remember turnings are historical divisions made by future observers who know what happened in our future, because it is their past. What makes 911 significant or the 1929 crash significant isn't the event themselves. It is what happens afterward as interpreted from a sufficiently distant future viewpoint. Part of what makes the 1929-1946 period a crisis is the High that followed.

Without being flippant, I must say yes and no. Yes in that, of course, an obvious 1st turning following a Crisis further solidifies the 4T's status as a 4T, but I think someone with saecular knowledge could have recognized the kind of period 1929-19XX was by the early to mid thirties without much difficulty ("19XX" from their POV in the '30's, mind you). Again, not just by the dooziness, but also by the issue around the fall of the Social Order and by (what I see and you disagree with) the generational readiness for a 3T to 4T transition by or before that time.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

WW II so radically changed our government and society that ever after we talk about postwar and prewar being completely different eras. The sense that "the worm turned" after 1945 was apparent fairly shortly afterward. This makes 1945 a palpable boundary. But the war wasn't the only thing. There was this unsually long and servere depression before that also stands tall in memory. This depression started in summer 1929. By 1961 it was pretty clear that the 1929-1945 period was radically different from the 16 years that followed or the 16 years that preceded it.

It is the obvious (to a future observer) 1929-45 crisis period that pegs the end of the hero gen in the mid 1920's. It can't be much later than that or earlier than that. Had the Depression and WW II happened ten years later, S&H would have drawn the GI generation later, it certainly would not start in 1901. And if the GI's are moved up so would the Lost and Missionaries then there would be room for a Civil War Hero generation and the turnings and generations might look something like this:

1860-1877 (C) 1843-1859 (Civil War Heroes)
1877-1900 (H) 1860-1878 (Progressives)
1900-1919 (A) 1879-1898 (MIssionaries)
1919-1939 (U) 1899-1916 (Lost)
1939-1956 (C) 1917-1936 (GI)

And with these generations, the constellation would NOT be aligned in 1929.

But the Depression and World War did happen when they did, and even if they did happen later that still wouldn't change the (more or less) fact that no (at least typical) Hero archetype arose from the ashes of the Civil War.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

But again, if one believes in generational compaction and was witnessing the generations shortening in the several decades leading into the early 20th century, then 1929 would not have been that big a surprise.

How do you witness generations shortening? There is no direct measure of a generation length. Some folks born in 1987 consider themselves as more X than Millie. Generational boundaries for younger generations depend on what that generation does latter in life. That is, to witness generations shortening is to know the future. But if you know the future, then you know when the 4T will come and there is no need to use a model.

A 1987 cohort member can consider themselves a Silent. That doesn't make it so.

We can determine generational boundaries by looking at the cohorts and how they are behaving and reacting against archetypal patterns. S&H do it, and I don't see a problem with this. If you do, then you seem to have a serious problem with S&H methodology, unless I am misunderstanding you.

I say this with respect, Mike. I don't know what else to make of it.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

S&H, working in the late 1980's, could clearly see that there was a crisis that began around 1930 and an Awakening that began in the late 1960's. They could do this because they were observing these periods with decades of hindsight (that the 1933 observer lacks).

The 1933 observers did observe the "cycle" in realtime. Since the crisis of 1933 revolved around the economy, wrt the Industrial Revolution, it was strongly believed and argued at the time that government intervention could possibly break the cruel consequences of the business cycle. Stuart Chase, writing in his 1932 book, A New Deal, noted the cycle precisely:

• Who can give offhand the prosperous years of the last century? Only a few cloistered students. But we all remember the dates... about the first of this particular variety of morning after: 1893, 1873, 1857, 1837, and some of us the panic of 1819.

These same dates are still being echoed today (check out the article William Strauss posted here) wrt the political cycle.

Previous to 1929, the U.S. economy suffered a depression or severe recession nearly 10 out of every twenty years. Today that ratio is down to about 3 out of 20 years, with much less severity. It would appear, the boom and bust of the 1933-40 period notwithstanding, this attempt to tame the business beast was largely successful.

And thus, proves that many understood exactly where they were wrt to the cycle in the realtime world of 1933. More here.