Then you are mistaken, as a search reveals.Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86
My very rough estimate would indicate a 2015-2018 end date.
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Posts
- 3,018
Then you are mistaken, as a search reveals.
My very rough estimate would indicate a 2015-2018 end date.
Nah, that still requires that were already 4T, i doubt that the 4T started in 2001, however 2005 may have been the start of it, the last midterms, as many have said eerily resemble 1930. However east asian affairs resemble the 1920's with china's leadership currently dominated by the east china based commercial interests. Tienammen square and the taiwan liberalisation are fairly analagous the the revolution of 1911 with the straits crisis of 1995-96 analagous to the 21 demands of 1915.
There's no way to predict the length of a world war, or any crisis
war. Furthermore, a world war is not a single war, but is made up of
many smaller wars, each of which may or may not be a crisis war for
the particular participants. Thus, the 1T may begin (and certainly
WILL begin) at different times in different regions of the world. In
some regions it will be very early, and in other regions it will be
very late.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Hmm... I'm not so sure. For most World War Two participants, for whom WWII was part of a crisis, there was a 1943-1945 climax (with only a handful of exceptions). I don't believe the next one, if/when it occurs, should be any different. Each country will have different goals in mind and a different set of problems; but I believe that as the climax approaches for one country, it will then approach for its neighbor, and then for all.
It's difficult to imagine a conflict like this dragging on for more than 5 years.
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/968/worldmaptd7.png
Last edited by Matt1989; 10-01-2007 at 03:10 PM.
What I would like from Cynic Hero '86 is an article title and date for the blog entry on the Generational Dynamics site where John Xenakis ever said that he thought the next 1T would start in 2012 or 2013. Everything John writes on his site has a title and date posted. Title and date, please.
I've read his blog ever since he began it in 2003 and I never recall him saying that the next 1T would begin that soon here in the U.S. and Canada. I believe that Europe and other parts of the world in 4T or approaching it will get its next 1T even later than in North America, btw.
As for 4Ts not having a set length, one can say the same for Unravelings as well.
I know all about the Mayan prophecies and I'm not sure if I really believe that the world will end right on December 21, 2012. I guess we will have to wait and see on that.
John did put a Danger: Do Not Enter emblem to the right of the shining sun right above 2030. That would refer to the Singularity, where there is a danger that robots might take over the world.
Let's just wait and see on the Mayan calendar and how the 4T plays out.
Last edited by Let The Pot Boil; 09-30-2007 at 10:26 PM. Reason: adding missing letters to a couple of words.
Following the Great Devaluation, Boomers will find new ethical purpose in low consumption because, with America in Crisis, they will have no other choice. If the Crisis has not catalyzed before, it will now.
- Strauss and Howe - The Third Turning, page 284 (paperback edition)
Treasure the time you have left, and use the time to prepare yourself, your family, your community and your nation.
- John J. Xenakis - Generational Dynamics
Wow! I think that I only had about 10 or 20 readers in 2003, so
you're one of a VERY select group!
Thanks for your loyalty. Let me know if I can answer any questions.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
I am watching that DJIA daily chart on its first part of its arcing fan that I've seen result from a failed inside reversal which started on Aug 16-17. If this builds out as a fan, and that's not yet observable, the market has a very high probability of crash. I know this chart pattern. I'm waiting to see if the daily price movements track this pattern. So far, so good.
I've found in my chart research that humans are quick learners; show them once and it won't happen the same way. That's why I'm interested in Generational Dynamics because it supports what I have observed in the chart patterns when I exhaustively studied them 15+ years ago...daily, much of each day, for nearly 1 year. The idea that once a generation is gone or powerless, like in old age homes, at home and elderly, the "game" can repeat because the watchdogs are then gone I believe to be totally true. This dovetails with a concept termed "ergs" of political power. The "ergs" of the elderly wane as they die out. This is why the '23 Weimar and '29 Crash can occur. Those watching get anxious around late Oct because that was the time of the Crash; but they don't recollect it the way the centenarians do.
MarketWatch readers rate risk of October crash
Narrow majority 'worried' or 'somewhat worried' as more than 12,000 vote
By MarketWatch
Last Update: 7:38 AM ET Oct 3, 2007
LONDON (MarketWatch) -- A narrow majority of MarketWatch readers who responded to an online poll this week said they are either "very" worried or "somewhat" worried about a market crash this month.
But nearly one in three said their portfolios are diversified and they remain upbeat about the market.
October marks the 20th anniversary of the 1987 stock market crash.
The poll was conducted over the first two days of October as part of MarketWatch's monthly Trading Strategies report.
This month's report focused on the similarities and differences between the markets in October 1987 and this year. See Trading Strategies.
Some 12,037 votes were cast in response to the question "How worried are you about a market crash this month?"
Readers were given four choices:
1. Very: My money's in the mattress.
2. Somewhat: I've adjusted my allocations.
3. Not very: I'm diversified and upbeat.
4. Buy! Buy! Buy!
Those saying they were either "somewhat' or "very" worried totaled 6,380, or 53% of all those responding.
Readers were almost evenly split between those who said they felt "somewhat" worried about a market crash those who said they were "not very" worried.
Of those responding, 3,876, or 32.2% chose "not very," while 3,766, or 31.29%, chose "somewhat."
On the more extreme ends of the spectrum, 21.72% of the readers chose the response "Very: My money's in the mattress," while 14.8% chose the response "Buy! Buy! Buy!
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...B9BC4C7A716%7D
...And I get accused of having a rigid, linear world view? Who says the future WILL unfold a certain way? At least the past is easy enough to discern one way or another in the matter of events, but playing "what if?" is never truly satisfying either.
"...do the Fed and the Treasury of today totally comprehend what happens when the nonbanking private system suddenly stops flooding the market with credit? Do they recognize that such a shutdown puts spending for housing and business investment at risk, and job growth as well? The Fed will have to adapt its monetary policy, and the Bush Treasury will have to adjust its fiscal policy to this brazen new world dominated more and more by private rather than public policies and proclivities. To overcome private-market caution, the Fed may need to put on a bold face marked by even more decisive cuts in short-term rates. To prevent a housing-market slump from metastasizing into a cancerous self-feeding tumor, Treasury Secretary Paulson will have to coordinate policies that lend a helping hand to homeowners in distress." Bill Goss
Why would the Fed Res need to take any action? They're charged with protecting the banking system, not the economy. There is a gulf of extra-legal actions by the Fed if they do anything other than save the banks. The banks are stuck in non-bank businesses. Their brokerage arms are trapped and can't at this time pay back their sister national banks. And that is the Fed Res's concern. But that's the limit. The pier loans apparently are being packaged and sold off to private investors at a big loss, with the banks lending the money to the PI's. That, for the Fed Res, clears the decks. Goss, for his own vested reason, wants the Fed Res to also "see" the comm'l propty loans and the still-on-the-banks'-books residential propty loans as probable threats to the integrity of the banking system, the knee-bone is connected to the thigh-bone argument.
Yes, it has merit. What Goss wants is for the moral turpitude by the banks to be waived without penalty save some money losses which the Fed Res will attempt to guarantee be replenished over time. Recklessness is being rewarded with governmental protection.
This is the theme of our time, here in the USA. Recklessness is being rewarded with governmental protection.
Another example is the US legislature's response to the growing number of foreclosures. Those foreclosures are based on no down, fraud in the loan applications, collusion by buyer-mortgage broker-realtor-appraiser, and greed. The response continues to be efforts at loan burden relief via legislative interference with contractual relations.
IMO, there is a redefinition of morality occurring.
Not to drift far from the topic of interest to me, economics, one sees analogies in the US executive branch, be it the most recent claim by Bush that the US does not torture or the earlier Plame disclosure by the White House and the insistence there were WMD's.
I'm having difficulty accepting that moral turpitude is the accepted norm, and is the model by which to model one's behavior at this time, to be successful. I've no difficulty understanding what I perceive is broad-based rejection of this line of thinking by those who use it to reinforce their own need for their definition of morality.
I admit my own desire for morality, transparence, honest observation; however, this is not the case.
Would anyone here care to comment on this rant, for which I apologize?
Dear Gaudia,
The problem is that there's no longer any difference between the
banking system and the general economy.
When the Bear Stearns hedge funds collapsed in July, it was clear
that Citibank was in bed with them. When the global credit crisis
occurred in August, it was a crisis in BOTH the banking system and the
economy as a whole. The real estate subprime mortgage crisis clearly
affects all sectors of the global economy.
When the reality of the consequences of the 1929 stock market crash
finally began to sink in, Congress passed the Glass Steagall in 1933
to control some of the worst abuses in the banking system. The act
particularly required commercial banks and investment banks to be
completely separate.
As Boomers and Gen-Xers began to assume financial leadership
positions in the late 1990s, they increasingly abused credit and
debt, to the point of total depravity and debauchery. One of the
things that they did was to repeal the Glass Steagall in 1999. So
there's no difference, in law or in practice, between the banking
system and the general economy.
Actually, the redefinition of morality began after the 1970s. Today
the opposite is happening -- credit depravity is on the decrease.
Investors are becoming more "risk aversive," and creditors are
becoming more careful.
On the other hand, the use of revolving credit is continuing to
skyrocket, because ordinary people have not yet fully received a
shock. This is coming soon, however.
This is how the generational cycle works. The 1920s were a time of
universal self-delusion; by the mid-1930s, after several years of
massive bankruptcy, homelessness and starvation, much of the
self-delusion was gone, replace by extreme risk-aversiveness when it
comes to debt and credit.
As the survivors of the 1930s Great Depression have all died or
retired, all the safeguards against the depraved use of debt and
credit have disappeared again, and the world is in a new state of
universal self-delusion.
However, the suprime mortgage crisis has already erase a tiny bit of
that universal self-delusion; the rest will be erased before too much
longer.
Take a look at the new article that I just posted, comparing what's
happening today to what happened in the 1920s. I was able to make
some specific new predictions about the scenario that I expect to
unfold in the next couple of years, especially in our relationship
with China.
** The bubble that broke the world
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?d=ww2010.i.garrett071009
I would suggest not confusing generational trends with fatuous
political nonsense.
One of the things that I expect to see in the 2008-2010 time frame,
once the financial crisis is in full force, as I describe in the
aritcle mentioned above, is a massive change in behavior, returning
Americans to self-saving and self-dependence. So you won't have too
much longer to wait.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
John,
My posting of a few weeks ago:
"I am watching that DJIA daily chart on its first part of its arcing fan that I've seen result from a failed inside reversal which started on Aug 16-17. If this builds out as a fan, and that's not yet observable, the market has a very high probability of crash. I know this chart pattern. I'm waiting to see if the daily price movements track this pattern. So far, so good."
I followed this up daily on Mish's blog in the reader comments. I called the top 2 days after it occurred.
My point, which is why I came here in the first place, is that charts are readable, and you disagreed. In Mish's blog I explained ad nauseum what I was seeing.
Based on the Aug 17/20/21 pattern, this market will now drop to DJIA 1250, not might, but will. This is chart fact. Next will be choppy waters and then the drop to 10000 and then the grinding decline to 6000 and below.
The 401K holders will refuse to redeem and thus allow the wipe out of 1/2 the nation's store of value in equities. Those dammmmmm fools. Taxes are too expensive; so they'll just sacrifice it all.
This is a generational pattern too.
What do you have on the topic of refusal to move on? The Jews in Germany/Europe refused to read the signs, or even bother to look. The equity holders worldwide had better look now because within months, they will be shocked to find they lost most of their life savings.
Do you know or have references about refusal to recognize the change in the marketplace? (I know, GM and Ford's Edsel... those managers should have been fired, but when enough are incriminated, the game continues.)
Dear Gaudia,
I wasn't really disagreeing with you, but let me spend a little time
explaining what I meant.
The kind of chart reading that you're talking about falls into the
category of what I call "short-term forecasting." It's the kind of
thing that technical analysts on Wall Street do all the time. They
identify some pattern, like your "dynamite triangle," and they show
that whenever this pattern occurs throughout history (or, at least,
recent history), there is always (or almost always) some predictable
outcome in a fairly short time window -- e.g., the market will go up
or go down or whatever within, say 6 weeks.
When used by themselves, short-term forecasting predictions rarely
tend to be right more than 50% of the time -- i.e., no better than
chance.
But now let's take, for example, your statement about the "grinding
decline to [DJIA] 6000." How could you possibly know that, just from
reading the charts for Aug 17/20/21? In fact, why would that thought
even enter your mind?
The answer is that you aren't JUST using the information from the Aug
17/20/21 charts. You're also using information that you obtained
another way -- a forecast that the market is going to crash, based on
a historical analysis going back more than a century.
The prediction that the market is going to crash, which I made in
2002, is a "long-term prediction." If done properly, using
generational techniques, then it produces a prediction with 100%
certainty of occurring, with a very long time window, sometimes months
or years long.
Now, what you've done is an example at the heart of the Generational
Dynamics forecasting methodology. In this methodology, you COMBINE a
long-term forecase (the market is going to crash) with a short-term
forecast (in this case, based on chart reading), and you come up with
a forecast for a short to medium time window, with a probability of
occurring substantially higher than 50% (although never quite
reaching 100%).
So what you're doing is COMBINING two different kinds of forecasts
into a merged forecast and, if I understand correctly, you're doing
so quite successfully.
So I wasn't disagreeing with your potential for success. I was just
pointing out that you need more information than is provided by chart
reading alone, and that, at least subconciously, you're using
information obtained a different way.
> What do you have on the topic of refusal to move on? The Jews in
> Germany/Europe refused to read the signs, or even bother to look.
> The equity holders worldwide had better look now because within
> months, they will be shocked to find they lost most of their life
> savings.
> Do you know or have references about refusal to recognize the
> change in the marketplace? (I know, GM and Ford's Edsel... those
> managers should have been fired, but when enough are incriminated,
> the game continues.)
What you're describing here is what I call the Principle of Maximum
Ruin, which states that a generational crisis will ruin the maximum
number of people to the maximum extent possible.
I've just written a couple of new articles that explain the Principle
of Maximum Ruin in the context of what's been happening the last few
days:
** WSJ: "When crash means 'buy'"
How mainstream financial media are cheerleaders for the Principle of
Maximum Ruin.
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e071019b#e071019b
** Investors commemorate the false panic of Monday, October 19, 1987
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e071019#e071019
These two articles explain how one generational crisis leads to the
next one, 70-90 years later.
In the case of the 1929 crash and the situation today, a very
important role is played by the False Panics of 1914 and 1987,
respectively. These false panics serve the important role of
convincing younger generations that there no longer anything to fear
from a new crisis, and that all the problems that caused the previous
crisis have been solved.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Crash!
For those with a morbid sense of humor, I stumbled across this while
surfing:
Wasn't the previous saeculum's false panic in 1907, not 1914.
No, 1907 was a real panic. 1914 wasn't.
Yes but I think he meant an economic crash that does not cause a long-term depression neither 1907, 1914, or 1987 caused such a depression, but 1929 did.
The 'false panic' theory presumes that around 58 years following a major action, a similar yet less serious "panic" will occur. 1907 was quite serious, and was a legitimate recession. 1987 didn't materialize and was a one-week scare, as was 1914.
Was 1871 a false panic? And was 1813 a huge crash?
I'm referring to "crisis panics" and false panics, so I'm not sure those would be applicable. I actually hadn't heard of those panics... what happened?
Nothing I know of. I was doing the math with 58 years.
Now I'm confused...
That makes two of us. Was there a Panic of 1813? I mean, for an effect (1871), you need a cause (1813).
No financial one that I know of. Which means, the 58-year theory is BS.
Thank you Michael for your outstanding thinking. What I'm able to do is short term forecasting using data stored in my head. I've seen thousands of charts, sorted the printouts, studied them in triple bar movement patterns, tranched them, and identified highest probability moves. The Aug 17-21 move set up a probability of options. The most explosive was the wide, shallow arc leading to a swan dive and waterfall right through the starting point, and that's what formed over the past 3 weeks. I posted daily at Mish's explaining this chart was forming. 2 days after last week's high, I said that was the high of the market, and if it traded out sideways a few more sessions, the market chart would raise the probability of the crash "now". In fact, last Wednesday, I told everyone I was going short on Thurs and Fri.
Now the market is in a major decline. Jim Sinclair's phrase, for gold, is "This is it."
Of course I measure generational sentiment. The view of the current generations in charge of the money supply at banks and financial companies, and the teens, is that Disneyland will continue ad infinitum. So, that assures an outrageously severe and overextended decline. The sense of conservatism held by our parents is now long gone, and will regain center stage for all the generational dynamics reasons you've discussed.
However, the chart patterns are not 50%. There are very high probability charts. I've documents this at Mish's. I see the world as chaos theory controlled. The closer to the event, the more assured the probability observation will be true. And as unknowns will intervene, one must always see reality as it is, which means as the chart pattern unveils, bar by bar.
Because I've seen so many chart patterns, I could conclude with reasonable probability the top was where it was after it and the next 2 days were added to the chart. It's not difficult if one has no vested interest in a direction. I believe what you believe, but I'm ready to recognize a chart change of direction, too.
Thx again for allowing me to post here and for your life's work. It's refreshing, independent and makes me feel more confident in my own ability to take actions in the face of the chart. The external events are what cause the charts to appear as they do, so of course, looking at those through your eyes, supports the chart readings, though no support is necessary as the charts are accurate reporters of what's happening in the immediately-past present.
As I recall, there was the War of 1812, which extended into 1813 and 1814. Don't know if that sheds any light on anything.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
What are you talking about!? Perhaps this rule of 58 is just a set of coincidences, but you've done nothing to indicate that it's BS. There was no panic of 1813, and there was no panic false of 1871 -- just as there was no panic of 2006 nor 1948.
Secondly, I believe we are referring to a "crisis panic" and a mid-cycle false panic.