Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> John, does it seem that 5/26 cannot be the smaller peak now?

You're referring to the speculations in my article
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/....i.060530panic

That really is speculation. It's impossible to predict the
date of a generational stock market panic. All we can say for sure
is that the climate is right at the present time, and it might happen
tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, or afterwards.

However, we CAN estimate the probability of it occurring within a
specified time period, and I've come to the estimate that there's a
50% chance of it occurring this year. This is based on the
following: P/E ratios have been above 20 for over 11 years, and so a
fall to PE=5 is overdue. (P/E has falled below 10 five times in the
last century, most recently in 1982, so it's not a rare or surprising
occurrence.)

If you've been following the stock market recently, it's been
incredibly spectacular. You've got all the world's market joined
together into a single market, jumping up and down together. In the
last couple of days the Asian, European and North American stock
markets have all "crashed upward" in lock step. Today the Dow surged
217 points (2%), its best day in three years. The FTSE was up 112
points (2%). And, as I'm writing this, the Nikkei is up 308 points
(2%). It's really amazing to see this, and it's a sign of great
dysfunction. It can't go on much longer. One way or another, it has
to end. Until then, it's a sight to see.

Now, returning to your question about the "second peak," as the above
referenced essay points out, the typical pattern for a stock market
panic/crash is a peak, a sharp selloff, then a 30-40% recovery, and
then a 20% selloff (panic).

Here's a graph of the Dow through today (June 29):



The peak was reached on 5/10, and now we may (or may not) be in the
midst of the second peak that leads to a panic. That's why I say
that the climate is right for a generational panic, but it's no sure
thing.

What would it take to get the stock market off the current path? On
my web site, I gave three different possibilities:

• A sustained rally. But this is actually pretty much impossible
  now, since interest rate hikes in Washington, Japan and Europe have
  substantially reduced the amount of liquidity in the world, and
  because investors' risk-aversiveness is much higher these days.
  
• A sharp reduction in volatility. But this obviously isn't
  happening. If anything, volatility is increasing, with ever larger
  market increases and decreases.
  
• A "de-synchronization" of the world's markets -- e.g., Asia goes
  up when Wall Street goes down. This would indicate that money is
  flowing from market to market, rather than being pulled out of ALL
  markets. But obviously this isn't happening either, as worldwide
  markets remained closely synchronized.

http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...060615#e060615

Any one of these three things would take us off the path to a major
stock market panic, but none of them is happening. If anything,
we're more firmly on this path every day.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> And your Dow Jones Archive hasn't been in the right place in the
> in-depth analysis section since you updated in late May.

Thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look at it.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
john@GenerationalDynamics.com
http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear Richard,

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> As promised, I went to your website and spent a considerable
> amount of time there, trying to find the principles of GD and
> their supporting arguments. I’ve determined that indeed your
> principles are well in place and fairly well justified. It took
> some work for me to get there because I was biased by a different
> way to approach the subject matter scientifically. My bias is
> perhaps more of a preference obtained over the years through
> scientific discourse and publications. My approach is Old World, I
> suppose: first the problem question, then the solution hypothesis,
> then the purpose/objective summary with a clear statement of the
> proposed principles, their assumptions, and how those principles
> assemble to formulate the answer. The rest are details, albeit
> important details.

Keep in mind how I came to this whole subject. There was 9/11, and
then there was the claim that The Fourth Turning had somehow
predicted 9/11. I read the book, and became obsessed with the
subject as I tried to determine for myself whether the theory was
valid or crap. I decided that whether TFT was could not be
considered valid if it applied only to the six Anglo-American cycles,
and decided that unless it applied to all nations at all times in
history, then it was worthless, with no more value than astrology. My
first Generational Dynamics book on the subject, which demonstrates
that the same generational patterns apply to many countries in West
Europe, East Europe, and Asia, was part of my own process to verify
TFT.

Then one day I had an epiphany, and I still remember the moment --
when it occurred to me that Generational Dynamics must also have
predictive value, and that's led to all this work on forecasting.
So my approach, which you say quite correctly is not "Old World,"
simply reflects the order in which I learned things and developed new
things. I hope that some day some grad student will take the work
I've done and formalize it in the way you describe, but I personally
don't have the time to do that, given that the current events
articles on my web site are my highest priority.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> I see these as your operating principles:

> 1. Principles of supply and demand — perfunctory, of course;

> 2. Principles of co-oscillating cycles — also perfunctory, with a
> variety of modeling approached available (e.g., S&H generational
> model, Kondratiev stock-cycling model);

> 3. Principles of Malthusian-type population growth dynamics —
> including predator-prey co-oscillations and limit cycles (e.g.,
> Lotka-Voltera, Margelef);

> 4. Principles of stock-market dynamics — including price/earning
> ratios and exchange values;

> 5. Principles of mass psychology — subjective evaluations of
> euphoria and hysteria;

> 6. Principles of chaos theory — certain kinds of co-oscillating
> systems, including attractors, butterfly effects,
> non-predictability, phase space, heat/entropy.

This is really an incredible list, Richard, and I thank you for
taking the time to prepare it. It's going to take me some time, but
I'm going to fiddle with this list and try different ways of
presenting it. The one thing that has to be changed is to make
generational patterns far more prominent -- at the head of the list
-- rather than as a sub-sub-item as you have it. You can take
everything in that list and it's all been done before. What makes
Generational Dynamics what it is is taking everything in that list
and adding generational theory to it. (Now that I think about it,
maybe that's the way to depict it: The entire list of items, overlaid
in some way with generational patterns. Well, that's for another
day.)

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> Then there is this matter of a concise description of the model. I
> don’t see it coming forward as much as I would prefer. I’d like to
> see a co-oscillating (coupled) structure like this, for example:

> dx/dt = f(x,y)
> dy/dt = g(x,y),

> where all the differential functions are precisely specified. But
> that may be asking for too much, at least for now, when there are
> so many factors that must accounted for.

Sure, I'd like to see that too, and maybe some grad student will
undertake that task some day.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> Yes, my bickering has been pedantic, I’ll admit. You biggest
> mistake is putting up with it.

You forget how much we all love you, Richard.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
john@GenerationalDynamics.com
http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

John,

You really do have a Herculean task of managing so many operating principles. Trying to bring them together to describe and predict generational affairs is not unlike a biologist's task of trying to exlain macroevolution. NOBODY has a definitive model of macroevolution that can be expressed conveniently by way of coupled differential equations, or any other kind. And yet we have a fossil record extending back more than a billion years to sample from. It took S. J. Gould 1,433 pages to elucidate "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" (2002), which is hardly a concise expression of what evolution is and means. And don't expect Ernst Mayr to tell you what evolution is exactly in his 2001 book "What Evolution Is." You'd think one of those Harvard boys would come up with the magic formula.

So why can't you, John, come up with the magic formula for GD? After all, you have a few precious degrees from one of those hallowed Halls of Ivy. Come on. Where's the dx/dt = f(x) and so on? I'm wondering now if you should change your treatise title to either "Generational Macrodynamics" or "Generational Megadynamics." The acronym would be "GM," however, which may not play so well in Peoria.

How about "Macrogenerational Megadynamics"?

If I select from my list of six perceived GD principles (stated about) just those that attempt to describe S&H generational affairs, I already have a hefty task ahead. Not even S&H have yet produced any coupled differential equations. But I do know this much about the operating principles of generations:

1. Gravity is a temporal driver — perfunctory, of course, but still acutley important in setting the diurnal, seasonal, and annual rhythms;

2. The maturation of humans is a temporal driver — in S&H's generational theory requires that nurture trumps nature; the nurturing environment of a human, affecting the first quarter of its life;

3. The fecundity of woman is a temporal driver — her window in time to produce children, which amounts to about half her natural life; and

4. Resource availability is a spatial driver — consumer needs of all kinds, from crops to slaves to women to land to water and so on.

Measuring the first three is fairly easy, or course, and they set the pace for the fourth oscillation, which is the hardest to resolve.

After thinking it over and reading more of your chaos-theory argument I tend to agree with you. Chaos theory may be your best choice of macro-models. Making it work is of course your passion. I can dig that. Thanks for letting me horn in.

—Croak

Dear Richard,

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> You really do have a Herculean task of managing so many operating
> principles. Trying to bring them together to describe and predict
> generational affairs is not unlike a biologist's task of trying to
> exlain macroevolution. NOBODY has a definitive model of
> macroevolution that can be expressed conveniently by way of
> coupled differential equations, or any other kind. And yet we have
> a fossil record extending back more than a billion years to sample
> from. It took S. J. Gould 1,433 pages to elucidate "The Structure
> of Evolutionary Theory" (2002), which is hardly a concise
> expression of what evolution is and means. And don't expect Ernst
> Mayr to tell you what evolution is exactly in his 2001 book "What
> Evolution Is." You'd think one of those Harvard boys would come up
> with the magic formula.

> So why can't you, John, come up with the magic formula for GD?
> After all, you have a few precious degrees from one of those
> hallowed Halls of Ivy. Come on. Where's the dx/dt = f(x) and so
> on? I'm wondering now if you should change your theatise title to
> either "Generational Macrodynamics" or "Generational
> Megadynamics." The acronym would be "GM," however, which may not
> play so well in Peoria.

> How about "Macrogenerational Megadynamics"?

You're coming perilously close, in these paragraphs, to creating the
perception in my mind that you're mocking me. However, that
perception is offset by the fact I agree with most of what you're
saying, so I'll attribute that perception to my own paranoia, and
assume that you're being sincere.

I'm fully aware that I have a "tiger by the tail" here. I'm
overwhelmed by the amount of work to be done, and I can't hope to do
anything but a tiny fraction of what needs to be done. As I've said
many times, Strauss and Howe's fundamental work is absolutely
brilliant in how it explains the world in a way that's so
counter-intuitive that few people can even grasp its implications. By
the time their work is fully understood, it will require the complete
rewriting of almost every branch of scholarly endeavor, including
history, economics, population, sociology, evolution, and many
others.

I've taken S&H's work and I've advanced it, but all I can do is
nibble around the edges of what needs to be done. It will take other
people to advance what I've done still further. I personally focus on
what goes on my web site, because understanding current events and
the world today is the best thing I can do today as a service to my
country and to people in general.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> If I select from my list of six perceived GD principles (stated
> about) just those that attempt to describe S&H generational
> affairs, I already have a hefty task ahead. Not even S&H have yet
> produced any coupled differential equations. But I do know this
> much about the operating principles of generations:

> 1. Gravity is a temporal driver — perfunctory, of course, but
> still acutley important in setting the diurnal, seasonal, and
> annual rhythms;

> 2. The maturation of humans is a temporal driver — in S&H's
> generational theory requires that nurture trumps nature; the
> nurturing environment of a human, affecting the first quarter of
> its life;

> 3. The fecundity of woman is a temporal driver — her window in
> time to produce children, which amounts to about half her natural
> life; and

> 4. Resource availability is a spatial driver — consumer needs of
> all kinds, from crops to slaves to women to land to water and so
> on.

> Measuring the first three is fairly easy, or course, and they set
> the pace for the fourth oscillation, which is the hardest to
> resolve.

> After thinking it over and reading more of your chaos-theory
> argument I tend to agree with you. Chaos theory may be your best
> choice of macro-models. Making it work is of course your passion.
> I can dig that. Thanks for letting me horn in.

This is a pretty good analysis.

But you know, Chaos Theory is a funny thing. It doesn't really tell
you anything new. What it does is give you a handy list of terms
(like "attractor") that you can explain things with, and it gives you
a handy list of reasons why you can't do certain things (like predict
next week's weather). In the case of Generational Dynamics it tells
why you can't predict political events and it tells why political acts
have no predictable effect on major world events. So it's mainly
useful for helping you understand what you CAN'T do -- which is a VERY
good thing, incidentally, because knowing what you CAN'T do saves you
a lot of time. But its value is primarily negative, since it doesn't
tell you what you CAN do, and certainly doesn't tell you how to do
it.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
john@GenerationalDynamics.com
http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Croak isn't mocking you, or your theory, John. He's merely applying a heavy dose of skepticism, as is his nature. And I concur, but, of course, for differing reasons altogether. While Croak seems to heartily wrestle with S. J. Gould's 1,433 pages to elucidate "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" but still demanding a simple "dx/dt = f(x)" formula for immortality, I think the whole mess to be rather simple really...

...God, or what ever one chooses to call IT/Him/Her/Them et al, can't be explained via formula but only by "faith in things unseen." That's quite an anathema to a scientist, even one degreed from the reddish Univ. of Toledo.

And, according to S&H, one cannot take "God" out of the mystery of even generational cycles of history. 50% of their entire theory revolves around (pun intended) humankind's nutty "inner" drive that's makes mincemeat of sense of logic formula (google "Bishop Pike" for example). This spiritual longing defys even God's own mathmatical equation, which certainly explain all that is material.

In summation, while Croak may eagerly conclude God must thus crazy, I don't. God's just fine. Croak's the ones who's nuts. And so is the cycle of human events. :wink:

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I've taken S&H's work and I've advanced it . . .

Biting my virtual tongue. :shock:

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

...God, or what ever one chooses to call IT/Him/Her/Them et al, can't be explained via formula but only by "faith in things unseen."

As "faith" is derived ultimately from the latin "fides", yes one can have trust in a lot of things unseen.

One can trust that some fellow rose from the dead because some book told them so, while millions of others trust other books saying other things, yet somehow the latter are fatally wrong. One can trust in their church, or their pastor, or in their own mind to decide that said resurrected fellow would approve of neglecting the poor and pre-emptively killing people in other nations. Funny that the book actually says the opposite, but one must have faith.

Then there is faith in UFO's and little green men. Sounds as reasonable as believing in an unseen walking dead man who has unseen messages about neglecting the downtrodden and killing one's neighbor.

You can certainly rap and denigrate the spiritual all you want, but half of the S&H theory rests firmly upon it's mysterious power and effects (however interpreted) upon the cycle of historical events.

Dear Marc,

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

> Croak isn't mocking you, or your theory, John. He's merely
> applying a heavy dose of skepticism, as is his nature. And I
> concur, but, of course, for differing reasons altogether. While
> Croak seems to heartily wrestle with S. J. Gould's 1,433 pages to
> elucidate "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" but still
> demanding a simple "dx/dt = f(x)" formula for immortality, I think
> the whole mess to be rather simple really...

OK, but take that subject up with Croak. I've never claimed that
anything more complex than simple population growth can be
represented by a simple formula.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

> ...God, or what ever one chooses to call IT/Him/Her/Them et al,
> can't be explained via formula but only by "faith in things
> unseen." That's quite an anathema to a scientist, even one degreed
> from the reddish Univ. of Toledo.

That's completely untrue outside the realm of politics. I went to
MIT in the 1960s. I had MANY fundamentalist Christian friends who
were scientists. I sat in on Huston Smith's course on Religions of
the World four times (two full years). For a couple of years I
studied the "Bible Correspondence Course" from Herbert W. Armstrong's
Worldwide Church of God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huston_Smith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_W._Armstrong

I will tell you with that there is absolutely no conflict between
science and religion, between evolution and creation, except the
conflicts created for political or fund-raising purposes.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

> And, according to S&H, one cannot take "God" out of the mystery
> of even generational cycles of history. 50% of their entire
> theory revolves around (pun intended) humankind's nutty "inner"
> drive that's makes mincemeat of sense of logic formula (google
> "Bishop Pike" for example). This spiritual longing defies even
> God's own mathematical equation, which certainly explains all that
> is material.

Can you give me a page reference in either "Generations" or "TFT"
that talks about this?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

> In summation, while Croak may eagerly conclude God must thus
> crazy, I don't. God's just fine. Croak's the ones who's nuts. And
> so is the cycle of human events. Wink

I consider my work -- the stuff I've written on this forum, on my web
site, and in my books -- to be completely neutral with respect to
religion. Can you point to anything I've written that contradicts
your religious beliefs or anyone else's religious beliefs?

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
john@GenerationalDynamics.com
http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear Sean,

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

> Biting my virtual tongue. Shocked

I feel quite confident that you'll be rewarded in the next life for
your effort.

Sincerely,

John

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

You can certainly rap and denigrate the spiritual all you want, but half of the S&H theory rests firmly upon it's mysterious power and effects (however interpreted) upon the cycle of historical events.

I did not denigrate the spiritual. It would be foolish to do so since spirit is ultimately all there is.

No, what I denigrate, dear Trog, is your ignorance and hypocrisy. Since you are so ignorant, let me interpret my post for you.

One, the religious creed you claim to believe is, depending upon the context, a magical cult, a sociocentric mythological narrative, or a profoundly spiritual allegory. As your context is clearly #2, you miss the point of what your alleged Master meant, which leads to . . .

Two, I submit you have learned little, if anything, about the true spirituality your religion has to offer. Instead you use it for purposes of belonging to an in-group and justifying ego-based idolatry ("We 'Christians' are better than those liberals", "America is God's chosen nation so we can kill infidel A-rabs", etc).

IOW, even IF your "book" was the absolute reference of Truth, you still don't live by it. Therefore, you are both arrogant and hypocritical.

Does that help?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Sean,

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

> Biting my virtual tongue. Shocked

I feel quite confident that you'll be rewarded in the next life for
your effort.

Sincerely,

John

Bring on the virgins!

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

> And, according to S&H, one cannot take "God" out of the mystery
> of even generational cycles of history. 50% of their entire
> theory revolves around (pun intended) humankind's nutty "inner"
> drive that's makes mincemeat of sense of logic formula (google
> "Bishop Pike" for example). This spiritual longing defies even
> God's own mathematical equation, which certainly explains all that
> is material.

Can you give me a page reference in either "Generations" or "TFT"
that talks about this?

Page 79 in Generations charts the inner and outer driven eras in the cycle. All I meant was that scientists are generally a skeptical bunch (and rightly so). And the closest anyone's come to quantifying "spiritual awakenings" is probably Robert Fogel. You might want to google his name and see what you get.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

> And, according to S&H, one cannot take "God" out of the mystery
> of even generational cycles of history. 50% of their entire
> theory revolves around (pun intended) humankind's nutty "inner"
> drive that's makes mincemeat of sense of logic formula (google
> "Bishop Pike" for example). This spiritual longing defies even
> God's own mathematical equation, which certainly explains all that
> is material.

Can you give me a page reference in either "Generations" or "TFT"
that talks about this?

Page 79 in Generations charts the inner and outer driven eras in the cycle. All I meant was that scientists are generally a skeptical bunch (and rightly so). And the closest anyone's come to quantifying "spiritual awakenings" is probably Robert Fogel. You might want to google his name and see what you get.

He will probably conclude that Fogel built on McLoughlin, whom John has read.

And as for "inner" Marc, in this case that means "coming from subjective experience" as opposed to "coming from objective observation". Those are two sides of the same coin, IMNSHO, even if we have Mr. Meece decrying one and Croaker decrying the other.

To exclusively equate "inner" with "spiritual" would be a Gnostic move. But since you're such a sour puss I am not surprised. The body is very dirty, Trog. Your onanistic pursuits are satanic.

Oh, but neglecting the poor (who will "be with us always" anyway) and killing your A-rab neighbor is okay, right Marc? It must have been that darn "liberal" Christ that said something like "love your enemies". What kind of commie crap is that, eh?

Dear Marc,

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

> Page 79 in Generations charts the inner and outer driven eras in
> the cycle. All I meant was that scientists are generally a
> skeptical bunch (and rightly so). And the closest anyone's come to
> quantifying "spiritual awakenings" is probably Robert Fogel. You
> might want to google his name and see what you get.

Thanks for the reference. Now I understand what you mean.

This idea that awakenings are "spiritual" and crises are "secular"
has always been puzzling to me. Awakenings result in secular
changes, and every crisis seems to have spirituality as a major
factor. Certainly the current clash between Christianity and radical
Islam is very heavy with spiritual concepts. The same was true in WW
II in the clash between Christians and Jews in Germany, or between
Hindus and Muslims in the Indian subcontinent.

I sometimes use the phrase, "Great ideas are born in awakening eras
and implemented in crisis eras." In the case of spirituality, I
think this means that awakenings are times of "new spirituality" --
new religions, new interpretations, and so forth; and crises are
times of "old spirituality" -- existing religions serving as fault
lines.

I'll look further into Robert Fogel when I have a chance. I see from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fogel that he's developed a
theory of applying mathematical and statistical techniques to
history.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
john@GenerationalDynamics.com
http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

The Nash Equilibrium and the Fourth Turning

I know that all you guys really love boiling things down to
mathematical formulas, so here's something -- a speculative idea --
that will appeal to your formulaic yearnings and dreams for today.

You may have seen the movie "A Beautiful Mind" about John Nash, the
mathematician who won a Nobel Prize in Economics in 1994, even though
Nash himself was nutty as a fruitcake.

He won his Nobel prize in the field of game theory. Game theory is a
branch of mathematics where you study games like "rock, paper,
scissors." Each player makes a "move" and then, based on the rules,
every gets a payoff (positive or negative).

A "zero-sum game" is one in which the sum of all the players' payoffs
is zero. Poker is a zero sum game, because if you win then someone
else loses.

There are obvious examples of games in international relations. One
country may invade another if it thinks it can win -- territory,
resources, etc. Two countries may be enemies, but still not go to
war, since each believes that both countries will have negative
payoffs in the case of a war, no matter who wins. A war is seldom a
zero-sum game.

This brings us back to John Nash. His concept of the "Nash
Equilibrium" is as follows: In many games, there is a set of
strategies for each player so that no deviation in strategy for any
single player is profitable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

When you apply this definition to international relations, you can
easily get a bunch of examples:

• No two countries with nuclear weapons have ever gone to war with
  each other. I first started hearing about this in the 1980s with
  respect to Pakistan and India. They'd had wars before, but stopped
  having wars when they both got nuclear weapons.
  
  This is a "Nash Equilibrium" because a war between any two such
  participants would lead to the use of nuclear weapons, which would
  result in negative payoffs for both sides.
  
• Since 1990, the number of wars in the world has fallen sharply.
  http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/...=105089#105089
  The United Nations gives itself all the credit for this, but I have a
  different explanation. This has been unraveling and crisis eras for
  countries that fought in World War II, and during this period even a
  small war could spiral out of control into a crisis war that could
  engulf other countries, thanks to various defense treaties.
  
  If you look at the wars that have occurred, you see that each one had
  no chance of spiraling into a bigger war. The Balkans wars of the
  1990s refought the wars that started WW I 80 years earlier, but this
  time there were no interlocking treaties. The same is true for the
  Rwanda genocide of 1994. The American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
  were so unequal that they could never spiral into larger wars.
  
• Readers of my web site have written to me pointing out that
  nobody wants a war over Taiwan because so many businesspeople are
  making money through trade between Taiwan and China.
  
  This is another example of Nash equilibrium, and there will be no war
  over Taiwan AS LONG AS THE EQUILIBRIUM CAN BE MAINTAINED.
  
  The following graph shows what I mean by this:
  
  
  
  (Taiwan poll results to question: "Do you feel Taiwanese, Chinese
  or both?")
  
  This graph shows that the number of people calling themselves
  "Taiwanese" keeps going up as the 3T to 4T transition occurs,
  following the civil war between Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek that
  ended in 1949 with Chiang's flight to Taiwan.
  
  This example shows how generational changes can disturb a Nash
  equilibrium by changing it so that there's no longer an equilbrium.
  Specifically: If the people of Taiwan increasingly demand
  independence, then China may decide that there's a negative payoff by
  doing nothing, since they would lose Taiwan. So the idea of invading
  Taiwan comes back into play.
  
• There's a huge international game of "chicken" being played on
  the Gaza strip.
  
  On one side you have the West -- Israel, the U.S., the E.U. and Russia
  -- who have cut off aid to the Palestinians, believing that it will
  force the new Hamas government to recognize Israel and bring the
  terrorism under control. On the other side is the Hamas leadership,
  who believe that the West won't let the Palestinians starve to death,
  and will have to give in and provide aid after all.
  
  The equilibrium is being maintained by all parties, including Mideast
  neighbors, because any major act of war would have a negative payoff
  for everyone -- a major Mideast war.
  
• Since the end of World War II, when American became Policeman of
  the World, America has signed a large number of mutual defense
  treaties with other countries. These include Japan, South Korea,
  Taiwan, the ANZUS agreement with Australia and New Zealand, Israel,
  and the NATO agreement with all of Europe.
  
  The purpose of these agreements was to create an equilibrium -- where
  there would be a negative payoff for any invader to these countries,
  the invader would also be attacking America.
  
  However, that's exactly the situation that prevailed in Europe prior
  to WW I, and it didn't stop WW I; in fact, it made WW I worse, by
  forcing Germany into a war it didn't want.

Today, most of the world is in a kind of Nash Equilibrium: Almost any
invasion of one country by another would end up attacking other
nations' interests, resulting in a spiral to world war.

But this equilibrium is very fragile, because generations keep
changing, and population keeps growing, and technology keeps
changing, and so forth.

If only nothing would change, then the Nash equilibrium could be
maintained. But you have young generations in Gaza, Sri Lanka,
al-Qaeda, Kashmir, Chechnya, etc., who are UNSATISFIED with the
current equilibrium and with the NEGATIVE PAYOFF they're getting from
doing nothing. These young generations are using terrorism to
destroy the equilibrium, since being a victim of terrorism is a
negative payoff for doing nothing.

There are a number of regions of the world experiencing this tense
kind of equilibrium -- the Mideast, China, North Korea, Kashmir,
Checknya, etc. Once the terrorists succeed in making it too costly
NOT to have war, then war will begin in one of these regions. And it
doesn't matter who's first -- my guess right now is that it will be
the Mideast, but that could change -- then the equilibrium is
destroyed for all these regions, and world war ensues.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
john@GenerationalDynamics.com
http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

I once said that my head believed this but my heart didn't.

In regards to recent events, that's changing now :| :|

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> I once said that my head believed this but my heart didn't.

> In regards to recent events, that's changing now :| :|

Yes, it's very sad what's happening now in the Mideast. The slide
into war is accelerating, and full-scale war can't be very far off
now.

Did you see the picture of Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh on my
web site, saying, "No one can make India kneel." He looks so sad, as
if he knows what's coming. And of course he would know - he's an
Artist, born in 1932. I've seen the same sadness in Donald Rumsfeld,
and even found hints of it in Chinese President Hu Jintao. It's the
Silent Generation that feels the pain of what's going on. Boomers
and Xers usually don't know what's going on, but if they do, they
don't seem to evince any emotion except glee or outrage.

Almost everyone in your generation is totally oblivious to
everything. You're one of the few who have any idea what's going on in
the world.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> I once said that my head believed this but my heart didn't.

> In regards to recent events, that's changing now :| :|

Yes, it's very sad what's happening now in the Mideast. The slide
into war is accelerating, and full-scale war can't be very far off
now.

Did you see the picture of Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh on my
web site, saying, "No one can make India kneel." He looks so sad, as
if he knows what's coming. And of course he would know - he's an
Artist, born in 1932. I've seen the same sadness in Donald Rumsfeld,
and even found hints of it in Chinese President Hu Jintao. It's the
Silent Generation that feels the pain of what's going on. Boomers
and Xers usually don't know what's going on, but if they do, they
don't seem to evince any emotion except glee or outrage.

Almost everyone in your generation is totally oblivious to
everything. You're one of the few who have any idea what's going on in
the world.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

I have to disagree about Rumsfeld. I don't think Mr. "Six weeks in Iraq and they'll be throwing flowers at our feet" can see anything clearly even now. He was right about them throwing things at us. But they're ain't been no flowers yet. :wink:

P. S. to you spelling and grammer biddies. Yes I know that the above sentence is technically incorrect, it has two usage errors but no mechanics errors nor sentence formation errors in it.. I meant to write it that way. It's called artistic licence, Get over it. :evil:

Originally Posted by herbal tee

... But they're ain't been no flowers yet. :wink:

P. S. to you spelling and grammer biddies. Yes I know that the above sentence is technically incorrect, it has two usage errors but no mechanics errors nor sentence formation errors in it.. I meant to write it that way. It's called artistic licence, Get over it. :evil:

Didn't you mean three, as in: "But, there haven't been any flowers yet"?

Originally Posted by herbal tee

P. S. to you spelling and grammer biddies. Yes I know that the above sentence is technically incorrect, it has two usage errors but no mechanics errors nor sentence formation errors in it.. I meant to write it that way. It's called artistic licence, Get over it. :evil:

Is "Grammer" artistic license, too (or are you calling your grandmother a biddy?)? :P

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by herbal tee

P. S. to you spelling and grammer biddies. Yes I know that the above sentence is technically incorrect, it has two usage errors but no mechanics errors nor sentence formation errors in it.. I meant to write it that way. It's called artistic licence, Get over it. :evil:

Is "Grammer" artistic license, too (or are you calling your grandmother a biddy?)? :P

No, the biddy line was a stab at the one who started this nonsense yesterday. 'Nuff said. How's that for artistic licence.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Matt,

Yes, it's very sad what's happening now in the Mideast. The slide
into war is accelerating, and full-scale war can't be very far off
now.

It's easy to see now what you (and S&H) mean about "spiraling out of control." There is still time to temporarily defuse this crisis, but time is running out. The Arab Nations will not forget this. It is certain that the actions over the last few weeks will have a major effect on things to come.

Did you see the picture of Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh on my web site, saying, "No one can make India kneel." He looks so sad, as if he knows what's coming.

I noticed that as well. Everyone else seems to assume that there is always a way to end and solve crises. I wonder if he, as an artist politician, feels the same way.

Almost everyone in your generation is totally oblivious to
everything. You're one of the few who have any idea what's going on in
the world.

A few care about the situation. I've been glued to both the news on the radio and T.V. and some people have watched (I'm at boarding school now) and listened along with me. They don't know what is going to happen, but then again, no one seems to.

But, in general, we Millenials are too absorbed in our own lives to care about things that matter.

You know John, I can't help but think that I should take sides on this one. Generational Dynamics, in a way, says that everything that is going to happen is completely natural. The U.S.A. is going to support Israel in the upcoming conflict. Are we/they right? Wrong? Neither?

I think it's all about perspective. But that's not too reassuring.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

...

You know John, I can't help but think that I should take sides on this one. Generational Dynamics, in a way, says that everything that is happening is completely natural. The U.S.A. is going to support Israel in the upcoming conflict. Are we/they right? Wrong? Neither?

I think it's all about perspective. But that's not too reassuring.

Dear Mr. Easton,

I would urge you and your fellows to ponder The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie by Ms. Muriel Spark upon matters heroic and the taking of "sides". The "Decider" may be a "deceiver" (often of himself).

Something I suddenly remembered:

http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...060608#e060608

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

A web site reader wrote to me yesterday wondering about the Nasdaq crash in 2000. "You list the 2000 NASDAQ bubble crash as one of the major financial crises," she said. "Why isn't your generational clock restarted, thereby expecting another crash in 2070 instead sometime before 2010?"

The answer is that the Nasdaq crash was bad, and a lot of people lost money, but it was really a gradual decline, and wasn't a generational crash, in the same way that some wars aren't generation wars.

I guess at this point it's hard to explain, but if there's a real panic in the near future, then believe me, you'll see the difference. The market will fall 20% in a day or a few days, and investors will go into, well, full-scale unmistakable panic. It will immediately be followed by stories of suicides, of congressional investigations, and of demands to blame anyone who can be blamed.

Well, I'm assuming that you feel that the NASDAQ bubble was a generational bubble.

The difference between a generational bubble and a regular boom is clear. But what about a crash? I suppose you could call the 1987 crash a generational crash. But as for the NASDAQ crash, it appears that it was a natural occurence relating to the 90's bubble. Does a generational crash require an extremely sharp selloff, or are crashes nothing more than the result from the bubble?

Also, do you see the Nikkei bubble and crash as being generational? Came a bit quick, don't you think?