Dear Chris,
You certainly have more experience "on the ground" than I have, but IOriginally Posted by spudzill
see the American public in a totally reactive mode. Wherever a crisis
occurs, we'll be there. We're policemen of the world, and isn't that
what any policeman would do?
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Re: Mike Alexander's P/R methodology
Dear Sean,
It was a faltering attempt at humor. I just wanted to say that I
found the short story you asked about, about the day the law of
averages stopped working.
I'm mention a couple of things below. But the general point is that
S&H's 4T morphology is not a mathematical set of rules with a fixed
time-frame, but a flexible framework. In fact, S&H themselves allowed
a great deal of flexibility in their own analyses.
Following 9/11 there was a massive jailing of Muslims. 800-1000
Muslims were locked up for many months with no more serious charge
than a minor visa violation. They were allowed to have lawyers, but
the government was to be permitted to listen in on their
conversations with their lawyers. Nothing even remotely approaching
it has happened since Japanese were locked up in World War II. I
found a BBC story from those days that's still available online:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1694961.stm
Quite honestly, Sean, this discussion has only renewed my
astonishment over this issue. You're a very knowledgeable person,
and yet you've evidently completely forgotten that this happened.
This just supports the point about how thoroughly public opinion
shifted after 9/11 or, as people used to say, "Everything changed
after 9/11."
All I remember of this is that you briefly mentioned this in passing.
Could you refresh my memory?
That isn't exactly what I said. I said that Fox leans to the right,
and CNN leans to the left.
At any rate, I was working at home during those months, and I had
CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC on most of the time, and I can
assure you that all three cable networks covered the mass jailing of
Muslims at some length. But the general public just didn't care
about this subject. That's the massive shift in public opinion that
S&H predicted in a 4T.
This discussion has been an enlightenment to me. In my writings,
I've frequently mentioned the mass jailings of Muslims after 9/11,
but it never occurred to me until now that people have completely
forgotten about it, as if it never happened.
It's hard for me to see a relevant comparison between the
Disneyfication of Times Square and what we're talking about. Merging
the FBI and CIA databases, fully supported by the public, is a HUGE
shift in public opinion, and a major change in the philosophical
underpinning of federal law enforcement.
It's a clear indication of replacing the 2T political bickering with
a 4T unity.
The war lasted only a couple of weeks.
The West European public didn't consider Iraq to be a threat to their
way of life. The American public did, because of the WMDs.
But we weren't at war.
What are you talking about? If there's a massive shift in women's
attitudes, then that's going to affect public policy, including
whether we go into Baghdad. That's not a crock; it's simple
arithmetic.
I wrote about this on my web site, based on a Sixty Minutes
analysis. There's been a dramatic shift in the behavior of
college-educated women; they used to be more likely to work on their
career, but now they're more likely to stay at home for the kids.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...og0410#e041011
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in648240.shtml
Our entry into WW I was extremely controversial. We didn't even
enter for the first four years, and we carried on normal relations
with both England and Germany in the interim. The reason that
Woodrow Wilson is judged the second most controversial president in
history (after Clinton) is because he entered WW I. I interviewed a
GI generation guy last year who's still furious at Wilson for doing
that. He blames WW II on Woodrow Wilson.
This is where I believe that more flexibility is needed. Where is it
written that the "sullen brooding period" lasts only 14 months? As I
mentioned before, there's plenty of variation in crisis era time
periods, and even if you restrict yourself to just the six examples
in TFT, then you still have wide variation in the crisis period, from
5 years to 29 years, with no consistency in the sequence of events.
How long does the "sullen brooding period" last if you're in a 29-year
crisis period? (Warning: That's a trick question.)
I don't completely follow all this, but I don't see a couple of
examples of "jitteriness" as being significant. We're jittery today,
and we were jittery during the Cuban missile crisis. Hoover said
"Prosperity is just around the corner," and his opponents disagreed.
Roosevelt implemented government programs that infuriated his
opponents. This is all very different from today. How many times
have we heard someone say, "Everything changed on 9/11"? That's more
than a little jitteriness.
-----
Let me try a completely different approach.
I would argue that 9/11 was indeed a major "spark" initiating a 4T.
But what exactly does "spark" mean?
It has to mean something that terrorizes people, and something that
reinforces the need for the public to become more confrontational, so
that you get the cascade effect. Most important, it has to
reinforce the popular view of the appropriate actions to take
to unify that nation against its enemies.
9/11 was certainly like that. It terrorized and traumatized us, and
justified our invasion of Iraq as "global policemen of the world."
But I would argue that there's been a major "anti-spark" since then.
The anti-spark was massive intelligence failure that led to the
invasion of Iraq based on the belief that they had WMDs. This has
been a huge humiliation, and it's challenged our challenged our view
of ourselves as policemen of the world. Suddenly we're the
blundering Keystone Cops of the world.
But now here's the point: Let's imagine what the world would be like
today if we HAD found WMDs in Iraq. Let's also assume that we found
evidence that Saddam not only was making WMDs, but was also selling
them, or planning to sell them, to al-Qaeda types.
Now think about how different the world would be today. The invasion
of Iraq would be completely justified. Our self-image as policemen
of the world would be completely reinforced. At the very least, we
would be a lot more aggressive about Iran's nuclear weapons and North
Korea's nuclear weapons, and we might even be at war with one of
those nations.
I think it would be much more clearly a 4T world today if we had
found WMDs in Iraq. We might even already be at war elsewhere.
So if that scenario makes sense to you, then I would add the
following: If 9/11 triggered a 4T in this scenario, then it would
have to mean that 9/11 triggered a 4T in reality.
OK, but I would respond by recalling the 1930s.
A few messages back, when I said that America didn't respond to
Japan's invasion of Manchuria in the 1930s, your response was this:
"America in the early 30's was suffering from a cascade that was
economically-related, and quite wrapped up in that collapse, so it is
not surprising the US did not act against Japan at that time."
Your reponse supports a view of a "split 3T/4T" in the 1930s; that
is, we were 4T on the economy, but 3T on foreign affairs.
It's possible that the same thing is true today, in reverse. We're
4T in the war on terror (although the WMD "anti-spark" has cooled the
fervor), but we're clearly still 3T on the economy. We're "quite
wrapped up" in the war on terror, so it's not surprising that we're
still giddy on the economy.
Once again, this is an example of where "flexibility" is needed in
interpreting the 4T morphology.
In fact, I've had something of a change of thinking on this whole
matter in the last couple of years. At first I thought that
financial and war crises go hand in hand. But then I realized it's a
lot more complicated than that. The Tulipomania bubble burst in
the MIDDLE of the Thirty years war, and the South Sea Bubble burst
AFTER the War of the Spanish Succession. Furthermore, the financial
crisis that occurred before the Revolutionary War was a LOCAL
(New England) financial crisis, albeit triggered by a banking failure
in England.
So now I see the major international financial crises (Tulipomania,
South Sea, French Monarch, Panic/1857, Great Depression) as on a
GLOBAL timeline, and 4Ts as on separate, individual LOCAL timelines in
different countries, with each 4T containing its own LOCAL financial
crisis which may or may not coincide with the GLOBAL financial
crises.
And on a local basis, there's a financial 4T and a political (war)
4T, and they might be unsynchronized, as they were in the 1930s, and
as they well may be today.
I think I see what you're saying here and I generally agree with it,
but it seems to me the parallel between the institutional and social
orders can be drawn even more clearly. The institutional order is
developed in the 4T, built upon in the 1T, and destroyed (pretty
much) in the 2T. The social order is developed in the 2T, built upon
in the 3T, and destroyed (pretty much) in the 4T. Either way, the
2T/4T completely rejects and destroys the values of the previous
4T/2T, respectively.
I got the name "crusty old bureaucracy" when I heard a television
business news story that described some company as having financial
troubles because the "crusty old bureaucracy" that was running the
company was moving too slowly keep the company competitive with newer
upstarts.
The concept is that when business or other organization is new, it's
"lean and mean," in the sense that every employee is required to pull
his full weight, and perform income-producing activities.
As time goes on, the business becomes increasingly bureaucratic. The
organization becomes calcified with bureaucracies, older employees
who are waiting around for retirement, middle aged employees whose
job skills are obsolete, or whole departments or divisions producing
products and services that people no longer want. You can't get rid
of these obsolete divisions, because there's nothing else to do with
the mass of employees in that division, all with obsolete skills. So
unless you want a mass layoff, it's more profitable to keep the
obsolete division around, and let it produce its obsolete products in
the hope of making some money. After all, some people still by
horseshoes, even today.
Now if that's true of any organization, then it's true of the country
as a whole.
During the 1930s, the country had to completely renew itself, getting
rid of old businesses and other organizations, and starting new
organizations from scratch. Each of these "lean and mean"
organizations was very efficient.
But now, 70 years later, none of America's large businesses is "lean
and mean" any longer. And the government as well contains huge,
inefficient bureaucracies. The same is true of educational
institutions, labor unions, and all other kinds of organizations.
The result is that the country now has a "hollowed out economy," no
longer able to produce products that people actually want, at any
price.
Take a walk through a shopping mall, and try to find anything that
can qualify as "exciting." Remember how exciting it was in the 80s,
with PCs, PC games, word processors, spreadsheets, and a whole raft
of new software that everyone was anxious to learn. Then it was
exciting in the 90s, with the internet and all kinds of new gadgets,
like MP3 plays, and cell phones.
But try to find something exciting today. All you find are clothing
stores, and they're stocked with clothes imported from China. In
fact, fully two-thirds of our textile jobs of ten years ago are gone
to China. Old buildings have been bulldozed or converted into cheap
office space. We no longer have the capacity to manufacture our own
clothes, even if we wanted to, which we don't.
As you walk through the shopping mall, remember what kinds of stores
they used to have, that are now gone or almost gone:
- (*) There used to be plenty of record stores and then CD stores.
Today, records and CDs are obsolete.- (*) There used to be stationery stores. But with word processing
and spreadsheets and e-mail, there's no longer any need for pads,
pencils, envelopes, mailing labels, markers, office furniture, and
similar items.- (*) There used to be more game, computer game and toy stores, but
with online games and game boxes, there's no longer a need for decks
of cards, boxed game sets, mechanical education toys, educational
games, stamp and coin collection sets, and so forth.
The point is not that there are obsolete products around -- that's
always the case. The Xerox machine wiped out the carbon paper
industry for example, but it didn't affect the overall economy much.
As another example, when computers came into businesses in the 70s
and 80s, it completely flattened the management structure at the
time, as the Harvard Business Review can tell you. Secretarial jobs,
financial administrator jobs and associated bureaucracies
disappeared, and layers of management were eliminated. Hierarchical
management structures were replaced with matrix-managed structures
requiring less overhead. All this happened without a major problem to
the economy.
The difference today is that the country as a whole is so
bureaucratic that it can't adapt to the necessary product changes.
There's no major reorganization going on in record/CD companies, or
in the 3Ms and Averys of the world. They're just going on, trying to
hold on to what they have, laying off when absolutely necessary.
My doctor's office has several filing cabinets filled with patient
records. He has two employees working with him full time. One does
paperwork full time. The other combines paperwork and nursing duties.
One and possibly both of these jobs could be eliminated by a computer
system. You could multiply those examples by a million. Anywhere you
see people doing paperwork without a computer, you can be sure that
the jobs could be eliminated, and will be when there's a financial
crisis. Many manufacturing jobs could be eliminated by computerized
robotics.
For example, suppose China just disappeared for some reason. America
would no longer be able to import and buy clothes. What would we do?
Would we bring back the old textile mills and do things the old way?
Of course not. We'd develop computerized machines for manufacturing
custom-made clothing.
This is something we could do today, but we're so bound up in
bureaucracy that we can't do it. If someone wanted to do it, he'd
come up against a business / labor / government bureaucracy that
would scream bloody murder, because it might eliminate the few
textile jobs remaining. Nonetheless, I believe that this will be
the next "killer app," and it will completely change the textile
business, and eliminate textile jobs in America and China within a
few years.
But today, our hollowed-out economy is still importing stuff from
China, and exporting Treasury bills to China in exchange, and is
stumbling along with high-priced textile mills and companies that
manufacture obsolete CDs and pencils. And our hollowed out economy
just gets more and more hollow every day, as there are more obsolete
products and more bureaucracy.
OK, so let's get back to your question. The 4T period destroys the
economy, and forces the birth of new "lean and mean" businesses,
educational institutions, labor unions, non profits, and government
agencies.
These new "lean and mean" organizations become successful and
powerful during the 1T (hence S&H calling this the "High era"). The
2T social values regime challenges the "lean and mean" concept,
replacing it with concepts of job security and generally with the
concept that everyone deserves a job. This social regime feeds into
the increasingly bureaucratic organizations, leading finally to the
4T crisis, where the bureaucratic organizations are destroyed, and
new "lean and mean" organizations are born, starting the cycle again.
So, as you suggest, everything appears to fit together.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
No, crisis in China will be a bigger version of the 1997 Asian crisis. Hot money will run from the region, taking shelter in the dollar. To prevent currency decline, the Asian nations will sell dollars and buy their own currencies so the dollar will probably not rise like it did after 1997. The net result ought to be a decline in commodity prices with a fairly neutral impact on the value of the dollar and US interest rates. In fact, our stock market will likely rise like it did after 1997--although not as much as then.
Re: Mike Alexander's P/R methodology
John, thank you for your time and effort in responding. But I do not find it rewarding enough to respond in turn. You ignore my basic arguments and keep asking me to repeat crucial things. This says to me that you are not paying attention, for whatever reason. That's fine, but I just don't have the time to debate someone who does this. It's a waste of everyone's time.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
Re: Mike Alexander's P/R methodology
Dear Sean,
Well, you know Sean, I've had the same reaction to your postings, but
I posted a lengthy response to you, and if I didn't understand
something you've written, or if I've forgotten something you posted
weeks ago, then I apologize. I also tried to find some middle
ground, by suggesting first a 3T-4T transition period, and then a
3T/4T split, as in the 1930s, but no, for you it has to be 100% 3T and
0% 4T, and no compromise is possible. Well anyway, have a nice day.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Dear Mike,
I would be happy to answer these questions, if you wouldn't mind
answering some questions for me first: Why did Japan bomb Pearl
Harbor? Why did the South fire on Fort Sumter? Why do teenage girls
get pregnant?
One thing I got out of studying this whole subject for several years
now is that wars (at least crisis wars) rarely make any sense at all.
They're pure sex. Compelling reasons aren't required. Not having
money and soldiers is no obstacles. Or, to put it another way, "you
go to war with the army you have, not with the army you might want at
some time in the future."
In 2002 I told my son Jason to expect a draft by 2004-2005. Things
have gotten so bad in the North Pacific that I still think that
prediction will come true.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Edited on 4/18 to fix a typo.
Would America really go to war over Taiwan? In a 4T? I'm not so sure... GWB could certainly find a way to weasel out of our "obligations" to the noise-selling Taiwanese. Japan is another matter... we see the Japanese as being firmly within our sphere of influence, and would more likely consider an attack on them as an attack on us. Besides, we really like their cars :-)Dear Mike,
I would agree with you, except that I see China to be coming apart at
the seams, and ready to go to war with Japan, and with America over
Taiwan. I won't go into it detail here, since I've been reporting on
it at length on my web site, but the situation has been deteriorating
rapidly for several months, and a war in the next 12 months is a real
possibility.
In that case, China would be our enemy and would dump the T-bills on
the market as a weapon of war, while the country itself would descend
into civil war. That explains what I said earlier.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Re: Mike Alexander's P/R methodology
That's right. One of your stock market predictions has to come true within the given time period. So far the first one that deal with what would happen in 2003 was wrong. The market went up instead of down.
You still have your longer range prediction. And if you read the financial commentary, there is a lot of fear out there. Lots of people think the market is going to crash.
I am going out on a limb by saying it won't crash. In a couple of years the market will either have cratered by 50% or more (see below) as you argue or it won't and perhaps will be even higher than today, as I believe. I have already told you that if I am wrong on this I will throw in the towel on this financial stuff and get another hobby. Note I won't be saying that cycles are bogus--I will simply be saying that it is a waste of my time for me to dabble in them.
What will your position be should 2007 come and the crash you forecast in 2003 hasn't happened? Is your methodoloy falsifiable? Can it ever be wrong, or will other factors always obscure the results?
But you are defining valid as agreeing with your conception of what is valid. I validated my methodology in 1997 by predicting that despite the high P/E one should stay in stocks two years later. For my prediction to come true the trailing 12 month P/E on the S&P500 would have to go above 30--something that was completely unprecedented. You would argue that my forecast was invalid because it flew in the face of long-established valuation rules. Well it happened, reality confirmed the prediction, supporting the idea that the methodology used to make it was valid.But if you DO choose to use a methodology, then it's reasonable for me to insist that the methodology be valid for that purpose. And keep in mind that this
Then in 2002 I wrote that stocks had fallen enough for a new bull market to begin. This also flew in the face of long-established valuation rules like P/E. Based on these rules, logic dictated that the Dow would have to fall into the 4000 range or at the very least well below 6000 for valuations to get into line. You could argue that my forecast was invalid because it ingnored these rules. But it happened, a new bull did get started. Reality confirmed the predicton, supporting the idea that the methodology used to make it was valid..
Then you could argue that I am simply a bubble head and am always bullish. But I can point to my 2000 book in which I argued that the long-term upwards trend that I beleive would continue after 1997 was not going to continue much longer and would likely end in that year (2000). Reality confirmed the prediction, supporting the idea that the methodology used to make it was valid..
What these three examples show is that conventional valuation methods haven't worked since 1997. My methodology has.
That is not necessary. All I need do is point our that it hasn't happened. You made two predictions in 2003. The first short-term one has already not come true. The second wasObviously if you want to argue that my prediction of a generational
crash is wrong, you could simply argue that my reasoning is wrong.
So the Dow has to fall below 5000 by the end of next year or this one will be wrong too. A Dow above 5000 is mathematically impossible according to your methodology. So it seems all I need do is wait to see if the Dow goes below 5000 in the next 20 months which it must do if your methodology is valid. If it doesn't then the methodology must be invalid.
Dear Kevin,
One can't personalize decisions like this to one person, even the
President. This is the kind of decision that would be made by the
American public as a whole.
Actually, infrastructure is already in place to go to war over
Taiwan. For many decades, it's been a strong principle of American
foreign policy that if China attempts to take Taiwan by force, then
America will respond militarily. China has been militarizing rapidly
in the last couple of years, and particular has been building up a
fleet of amphibious vehicles that can transport thousands of troops
quickly across the 100 miles of the Taiwan Straits to invade Taiwan.
Recent news stories indicate that China has evaluated American
military capability and concluded that they can gain an established
foothold in Taiwan too fast for America to stop them, meaning that
America would then have to eject China from Taiwan, which would be
very difficult.
Nonetheless, as soon as we detected those amphibious vehicles heading
for Taiwan, we'd be sending aircraft carriers into the region to stop
the invasion from proceeding. This would happen before there was any
time for a public debate.
When the public debate occurred, yes, there would be a few people
saying. "Let 'em have Taiwan. What do we care?"
But they would be lone voices. The Senate and the American public
would be overwhelming in favor of opposing China in Taiwan for the
following reasons or perceived reasons:
- (*) China is still a Communist dictatorship and Taiwan is a free
democracy, and we have defend it, the way we defended Kuwait, and the
way we defend all democracies.- (*) We have defense alliances with Taiwan, South Korea and Japan.
If we failed to defend Taiwan, then South Korea and Japan would
assume we'll abandon them too, and the region will quickly become
unstable.- (*) If we failed to meet our existing commitment to Taiwan, then
other nations would condemn us thoroughly in the U.N. Some of them
(such as Australia) will demand that America meet its commitments.
The international situation would be a mess.
So the bottom line is that yes, we will go to war with China over
Taiwan, based on policies that have been in place for decades, and it
makes no difference at all who's President.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
China is not Iraq. We would have to pay for a war with China, they obviously aren't goign to fund it. That means increased taxes. And we would need more troops and that means a draft.
I find it hard to believe that the Senate and the American public
would be overwhelming in favor of increased taxes and a draft in order to accomplish the list of reasons you gave.
None of them seem to be compelling to me. How are you going to convince tax-phobic Republicans to vote for higher taxes to pay for such a war? Surely you don't think the Chinese are going to pay for this war too?
How are you going to get draft-phobic members of both parties to call for a draft for this list of uncompelling reasons?
Or do you think we can fight a war with China without spending any money and without drafting any soliders?
I did not write what you quoted. I believe Mike did.Dear Mike,
I would agree with you, except that I see China to be coming apart at
the seams, and ready to go to war with Japan, and with America over
Taiwan. I won't go into it detail here, since I've been reporting on
it at length on my web site, but the situation has been deteriorating
rapidly for several months, and a war in the next 12 months is a real
possibility.
In that case, China would be our enemy and would dump the T-bills on
the market as a weapon of war, while the country itself would descend
into civil war. That explains what I said earlier.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
Re: Mike Alexander's P/R methodology
The difference is I responded to all of your points head on and dealt with what you said. You were selective in what you responded to and otherwiese completely ignored my points, answering back as if I'd said nothing.Dear Sean,
Well, you know Sean, I've had the same reaction to your postings, but
I posted a lengthy response to you.
To give just one example, you never, ever recognized, though I've mentioned it two or three times in just our discussion here, and numerous times all over this board, that our reaction to (potentially anarchist) immigrants in 1917-1920 more closely resembles today situation than the Japanese internment of WWII. In the latter, we warehoused a whole people. We are not doing that today. All Arabs are not in camps. That is a categorically-inclined, fundamental 4T-type response. Today, and in the immediate 9/11 atmosphere, only a teeny-tiny fraction of Arabs were in jail.
In the 1917-1920 case, we threw thousands of suspected anarchists in jail, executed a few, and deported the rest. That was an intense but incomplete 3T style reaction. That more resembles what happened in our cycle.
Yet you just keep going on and on about comparing the post-9/11 roundup to the Japanese internment and ignoring what I wrote as if by invoking the internment the discussion is obviously over. You've done it at least twice. And that's not the only thing you've ignored. It's like if something is not in your worldview, you can't even see it enough to respond to it.
I acknowledged and responded to your points, you are not returning the favor. I would love to discuss this with you, but if you don't discuss in kind, it's not a discussion. Instead of writing back that you feel the same way, why don't you go back and READ what I wrote and see what you did not reply to or acknowledge whatsoever.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
Interning Japs and such...
"Yet you just keep going on and on about comparing the post-9/11 roundup to the Japanese internment..."
Some will be watching the History Channel tonight, and they will learn why FDR, "by keeping us in the dark," could do these things while cheering throngs of liberals said "Amen, bro!"
Everything that a Republican "Commander in Chief" does will be jeered as evil, even if it does not remotely come close to what the liberal gods, FDR or JFK, did because conservatives are inherently "evil." Thus the cases of Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla become the moral equivalent of FDR's Executive Order No. 9066, nay exceedingly worse because FDR sincerely "meant well" while Bush, in truth, means to build a Gestapoesque fascist state.
Watch the FDR show tonight on TV, and learn how a liberal can keep all America "in the dark" while being hailed by liberals as the "gray champion" of all time. Like Brian Rush and Mike Alexander have often said, Bush, nor Republicans for that matter, doesn't have the mettle of an FDR, or Democrats for that matter, because he's really a wimp.
FDR = Dead
JFK = Dead
Bush = Lame Duck
Lamb = Roundhead
... history = dead.
Methinks it's a bit odd that the poster spends so much time at a "history" website. But then that's the way it is with most liberals here. They could care a less about "history" per se. What really draws them here is the promise this website seems to make to them; that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it's assine cycle.
This, is course, pleases these donkeys very much. Hee haw!
:x
Ugh. As much as it annoys me to admit it, there are two Lambs here, and this Lamb was once a Cavalier (more specifically, a member of a marching band by that name).
"Dans cette epoque cybernetique
Pleine de gents informatique."
Mark any judges for death today, O Aborter of the Constitution?... history = dead.
Methinks it's a bit odd that the poster spends so much time at a "history" website. But then that's the way it is with most liberals here. They could care a less about "history" per se. What really draws them here is the promise this website seems to make to them; that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it's assine cycle.
This, is course, pleases these donkeys very much. Hee haw!
Re: Interning Japs and such...
When did you drop your 40 year-cycle idea? Was it the absence of a 1964-like outcome for the 2004 election? I now see you comparing Bush to FDR. You now think we be 4T?
Let me start by saying I'm not recommending this, but there's a novel, though less than likely, idea for dealing with a Chinese invasion of Taiwan by sea.China is not Iraq. We would have to pay for a war with China, they obviously aren't goign to fund it. That means increased taxes. And we would need more troops and that means a draft.
I find it hard to believe that the Senate and the American public
would be overwhelming in favor of increased taxes and a draft in order to accomplish the list of reasons you gave.
None of them seem to be compelling to me. How are you going to convince tax-phobic Republicans to vote for higher taxes to pay for such a war? Surely you don't think the Chinese are going to pay for this war too?
How are you going to get draft-phobic members of both parties to call for a draft for this list of uncompelling reasons?
Or do you think we can fight a war with China without spending any money and without drafting any soliders?
China has been defeated twice by the Kamakazi - the Divine Wind. What would happen if we applied that again in this case? By using submarine-launched Fuel-Air weapons (a dicey proposition, to be sure), we could stop any mass invasion as it nears the island of Taiwan, long before we need to commit forces.
In some circles these are considered to be WMDs, but F-A weapons were used by the Soviets in Afghanistan, with no major objections raised at the time. I don't see this adminstartion considering that an impediment.
Again, this is not a suggestion, but how else, short of use of nuclear weatpons, would you fight without committing forces, upfront. I have no idea how the Chinese might react, but I'll bet on bluster followed by severe economic sanctions.
Sounds like a role reversal, doesn't it? :shock:
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
I like your novel approach. Taking it perhaps a step further, from earlier Pentagon strategic war games -- There has always been concerned for "extraneous factors" entering into a scenario of heighten tension. In popular media these have been primarily portrayed as being accidental launches or a lone actor (e.g., "crazed nuclear sub commander"), but the more inside-the-ring concern has laid with field commands acting in a manner consistent with their authority but perhaps inconsistent with the current desires of upper command.
In the '70, the smart people at DAPRA designed a possible tactic to take advantage of these scenarios. In the middle of heighten tensions (e.g., historically, tanks massing in E. Germany) the Prez would call the Kremlin and explain to the Premier that an ICBM was accidently launched and now headed to Red Square, but that we had a 97% probability that the bird was not nuclear armed. We would apologize profusely and offer to pay for any damages. We would offer to stay on the phone for next 7 minutes to make sure everything was okay.
Later, there of course would be hell to pay (e.g., being chastised by UN) , but it would serve as a reminder to all that "stuff happens" beyond chain of commands when things get dicey. The tactic would likely take the air out of any further discussions of what are rational actions and responses surrounding possible major combat. If successful, the tactic should help all return to playing nice once again..
I am sure this tactic is still in someone's manual, but perhaps with a few Beijing phone number amended to it.
By the way, should the tactic actually be employed, the actual probability of the bird not being loaded could be well into 99.9% ? one can never say for sure under such circumstances. That?s the whole point.
Its not always a bad thing for the rest of world to perceive Americans as being all cowboys at heart.
"Che l'uomo il suo destin fugge di raro [For rarely man escapes his destiny]" - Ludovico Ariosto
List by John Xenakis
Events in the works:
(*)China civil war
(*)China reunification war with Taiwan
(*)North Korea reunification war with South Korea
(*)Chinese and Korean revenge against Japan
(*)Major financial crisis
(*)Avian flue epidemic
Re: Mike Alexander's P/R methodology
Dear Mike,
That's a very interesting question. Yes it's falsifiable, but one
can't simply use stock prices as the sole indicator.
The theoretical underpinning of my methodology is generational, and
so a failure would mean that the underlying generational arguments
have failed.
The heart of the generational argument is that it will be necessary
for the economy to completely renew itself, as it did in the 1930s.
This means massive business bankruptcies, which would inevitably imply
massive personal bankruptcies and homelessness.
As I said, this is the heart of the methodology. The other
components -- exponential trend analysis and p/e ratio analysis --
are supplementary, and provide timing information.
In fact, this means that if the market somehow managed to fall to Dow
3000 without causing the generational financial crisis, including the
massive bankruptcies and homelessness, then the methodology would
have failed.
So here are some indicators that the methodology is failing:
- (*) The astronomically high level of public debt falls to normal
levels without causing the generational financial crisis.- (*) The p/e ratio falls to the 5-10 range without causing the
financial crisis. (We both agree that the p/e ratio is going to fall
to that range, so the issue is whether it can happen without
triggering the generational financial crisis.)- (*) The market falls to Dow 3000 without causing the generational
financial crisis. (This is almost the same as the previous item.)- (*) If Congress actually started doing something to solve the
social security / medicaid / medicare problem, or if the news media
started focusing on the country's precarious financial situation, or
if a few analysts would start to say "P/E ratios of 20 are not normal
and are way too high" or if the media started focusing on the
increasing danger in the North Pacific -- if these and similiar
things started to happen, then I might actually start to wonder if
the methodology might possibly be wrong. If last year's Presidential
election coverage had focused on real issues rather than on
fantasyland caricatures of the two candidates, then I might wonder if
things are getting better. But as it is, the public is transfixed by
whether one Florida girl's husband or parents should be allowed to
decide her medical care, and now whether the murderer of another
Florida girl has made a sufficiently gory and sexy confession. As
long as the public consists of 200 million Alfred E. Neumans saying,
"What? Me worry?," then I don't have a moment's doubt that the
generational methodology is correct.
I feel almost certain that we'll have an answer one way or another by
2007, and maybe a lot sooner. The level of public debt has been
growing exponentially. Will it cause a financial crash, or will it
start to level off, and then drop to normal levels? My feeling is
that we can't go too much longer without knowing the answer to that
question.
I violated my own rules by making that prediction. It was a dumb
prediction. I should have qualified it with a probability. I
estimate that the probability of a major generational financial
crisis by the end of 2007 is greater than 50%.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Re: Mike Alexander's P/R methodology
Dear Sean,
I've now gone back as far as January 1 in this thread to find your
references to this subject, and here they are:
So this is your important point? If it's so important, why didn't
you provide more information? Why didn't you at least provide a URL
pointing to a web page describing the issue?
You only mentioned this point in passing, and provided no information
whatsoever, not even a name I could google on. I had no idea you
considered this so important.
Even now, I've been trying to find some information about this on the
web without success. Can you provide a URL of a web site or web page
that describes this? Maybe there's something in Wikipedia, if you
know where to look, which I don't.
I keep mentioning it because I felt you were ignoring its impact. I
also kept mentioning because it was something of an "epiphanical"
moment for me, and convinced me that TFT was on the right track.
Believe me, Sean, this happens to everyone. I've been online since
1984, and I can assure you that this happens all the time. If I
could provide some "helpful hints from Heloise," it would be that if
you have an important point then keep repeating it until you get a
response, structure your posting so that your point is emphasized, do
some research to support your point, and provide URLs where further
information can be obtained.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Re: Interning Japs and such...
Dear Marc,
I'm not sure that this interpretation applies to Sean in this
situation. He's essentially arguing that the Bush administration's
Muslim incarcerations aren't as politically significant as the FDR
administration's Japanese internments, which is the opposite of what
you'd expect if he were making a purely political argument.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Dear David,
I wasn't really familiar with fuel-air weapons, but I found a web
page that gives a backgrounder on them.
http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/02/chech0215b.htm
What I thought was most interesting is that the description of the
effects of FAEs is very similar to descriptions I've read of
the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo in WW II. In those cases, the
wooden buildings all over each city went up in flames, sucking all
the oxygen out of the air, causing massive casualties from
suffocation as well as from getting burned.
In fact, the firebombing caused far more casualties than the nuclear
weapons did.
I think it's quite possible that the Americans would use weapons of
this kind against an invasion force crossing the Taiwan Straits in
amphibious vehicles. However, I wonder if these weapons would be
effective if the vehicles were spread out, and I wonder how effective
they'd be over water. They'd suck up a lot of water and perhaps
drown some of the enemy, but the water would also provide some
protection.
But there's another point: China will make this preemptive attack
based on its intelligence. China claims to have "smartly analyzed"
America's military capabilities, but maybe their smart analysis
overlooks some other weapons like the FAEs.
And I agree with your other point: It's China that will be
threatening us with economic sanctions, rather than vice-versa.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
