Quote:If the 4T is upon us, it is truly time for all of us to put aside right-wing libertarian economics. That just won't wash when we have to pull together as a nation and help each other survive. We are not separate individuals; we are all in this together.

On the contrary, it's time to put away left-wing, socialist-collectivist economics. What you term "right-wing libertarian", throughout most of the history of this country would be called "American".

This forum is not really the appropriate place for this discussion, though. One of the great things about generational theory is that it is apolitical. People like you and people like me can agree on the theory. The challenge is not to focus the theory through our own ideological lense in order to reach our own preordained conclusions.

My hat's off to the 13-er firefighters who went into the burning Wolrd Trade Center and lost their lives every one, as well as to the passengers of the Pittsburgh plane. Up until this morning I was very proud of the way the Silent leadership was keeping cool heads in this, even though my mood has changed drastically - never thought I'd see this old Silent wanting a flag pin! Though I'm certainly keeping my "Hate Free Zone" bumper sticker.

However - after this morning's news, I'm very much afraid this is neither Pearl Harbor *nor* the 1920s Morgan Bldg bombing. I'm afraid Bin Laden (if it is him) has fired on Fort Sumter.

And Bush is both a Boomer and a conservative. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Just heard this morning that Colin Powell is counseling that we not involve Baghdad in our response because it would "jeopardize the coalition". Very 3T. Maybe this isn't a catalyst to the 4T, but only a precursor after all. Think I'll revise my "date" back to Thanksgiving week...

On another note, it would be nice if this discussion would stick to genrational theory for the most part. I could fill pages with why all the blue zone leftists are "wrong" - just as they could do the same for my red zone (or neck as the case may be) free market proclivities are "wrong" (even though I'm right). Such biases only serve to obscure the very theory we are attempting to observe...

On Chicago's WGN Radio 720's Extension 720 the historian father and son team of Kagan suggested that we make a trial run at the Lebanon and end terror's hold on the Beka Valley. It would be a training exercise wherein we develop our skills...then on to Bagdhad, etc.

The younger Mr. Kagan said this could be done for $100,000,000,000.00 to $250,000,000,000 extra a year for at least 10 years and perhaps longer. They want to use non-draftees as they are less of a public relations problem for the government and are better troops. It'll be a long run; this production. HTH

Cecil, whatever one's views, libertarianisms left and right can only flourish in the 3T and 4T. Someone extolling the rights of the individual at the expense of the community or nation is likely to be ignored, mocked, or attacked in the 4T and 1T. Think back to the last saeculum. Hoover stubbornly clung to laissez-faire views as the nation entered its 4T, and by the end of his term he was to most a thoroughly ridiculous figure. Libertarianism offers relevent answers during an Awakening and an Unraveling. Libertarianism offers irrelevent answers during a Crisis and a High.

Tom:


I do not think that we have seen the worst that the terrorists are prepared to do to us in this new war.


Unhappily, I agree with this statement one hundred percent.


What will we do as America's domestic fossil fuel resources are increasingly depleted or exhausted if our enemies have the bulk of the Earth's supply?


Well, what we SHOULD do is what environmentalists have been recommending for a long time: radically improve energy efficiency and switch to non-fossil energy sources. What we WILL so, however, is uncertain.


Doc62:


There is significant disagreement on how extensive this "War on Terrorism" should be. I have heard everything from "turn Afghanistan to glass" to "we have brought this hatred on ourselves."


That kind of confusion is normal for the early stages of a 4T. It is wrong to compare this war with World War II, which occurred at the end of the last Crisis, not its beginning. We are now, so to speak, in the first month after the '29 stock market crash, and George W. Bush is Herbert Hoover. (Or Abraham Lincoln. Let's not write him off quite yet.)


Cecilalb:


Re Brian's assertions concerning the red/blue zones. You really need to check your numbers. There's many suburban counties that voted for Bush.


As I explained already, "red zone/blue zone" refers to a cultural divide. It has no other significant meaning. The cultural divide is between the religious right at one extreme and the cosmopolitan cultural left on the other. Many of those who voted for Bush are not "red zone" people by this measure. But I think it's safe to say that hardly anyone who voted for Gore is. Thus, the adherents of the "red zone" cultural package are much fewer in number than the Bush voters in 2000.


On another note, it would be nice if this discussion would stick to genrational theory for the most part.


I don't think we can do that. It's impossible to separate the generational theory, such as the nature of a 4T and whether we are now in one, from the issues that will be fought over in said 4T. Right now, the main 4T focus is war. But that won't always be the case, and the global economy contains a very important civic dysfunction the Crisis must rectify. So the debate over free-market economics (and free-trade foreign policy) is very pertinent here.


HopefulCynic:


Culturally, I suspect I am defining religious right more broadly than you are.


My 30% figure comes from the membership of evangelical and fundamentalist Christian churches. It is probably slightly inflated, since not all such members share the values of the Christian right (e.g., Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and Bill Clinton, all Southern Baptists). But it's a pretty decent shorthand, if we want to include not only the firebreathing clinic-bombers, but anyone who shares those values (whether or not they agree with the extreme actions of some who do). And for voting purposes, that's what we should do. The extremists are always a minority of any political or social movement.


I cannot see how the total could be as high as 40%, let alone 50%.

About "red zone", "blue zone" and "white zone", you probably have about 25 percent of the population who are true "red zoners", 25 percent who are true "blue zoners", 20-25 percent who are middle-of-the-roaders, and the rest who don't care (or at least, didn't care in 2000).

Gore got all of the "blue" vote and some of the middle-of-the-road vote. Likewise, Bush got all of the "red" vote and some of the middle-of-the-road vote. Neither appealed to the "white" non-vote.

I think Brian Rush's fallacy was to include ALL Gore voters as "blue" zone but only include a portion of Bush voters as "red" zone. Our country is (or very recently was) truly divided.

Cecil wrote:

Think back to the last saeculum. Hoover stubbornly clung to laissez-faire views as the nation entered its 4T, and by the end of his term he was to most a thoroughly ridiculous figure.

Even more telling, the career of Joe Kennedy Sr., who during the last 4T was ambassador to the Court of St. James (aka Britain) and many thought he'd be one of the next presidents. But, he clung to isolationism, and had likely post-seasonal behavior from his days as a Lost. So, there he was almost ruined politically, or may we say ruined politically until his sons (two GIs, two Silents that could one day be pres.) came to power.

Sorry -- cecil didn't write it, Matt did. Matt was replying to cecil. In any event, Cecil and Matt enjoy.

I've created a new topic over in "Politics and Economics" specifically to address the red zone-blue zone debate. It's called "Red Zone, Blue Zone", feel free to move the discussion of that issue over there.


Old Toby

Mr. Rush wrote

That kind of confusion is normal for the early stages of a 4T. It is wrong to compare this war with World War II, which occurred at the end of the last Crisis, not its beginning. We are now, so to speak, in the first month after the '29 stock market crash, and George W. Bush is Herbert Hoover. (Or Abraham Lincoln. Let's not write him off quite yet.)

I did not mean to imply I was comparing this war with WWII, I meant to compare it with WWI. In 1917, Americans were also largely united with a wave of patriotic fever and a desire to avenge attacks against innocent civilians. I would also point out GenXers are in a similar age range as the Lost in 1917 and the Liberty at the time of King Phillips war. We are witnessing a late #T event.
Ms. Genser wrote

About "red zone", "blue zone" and "white zone", you probably have about 25 percent of the population who are true "red zoners", 25 percent who are true "blue zoners", 20-25 percent who are middle-of-the-roaders, and the rest who don't care (or at least, didn't care in 2000).

Gore got all of the "blue" vote and some of the middle-of-the-road vote. Likewise, Bush got all of the "red" vote and some of the middle-of-the-road vote. Neither appealed to the "white" non-vote.

I think Brian Rush's fallacy was to include ALL Gore voters as "blue" zone but only include a portion of Bush voters as "red" zone. Our country is (or very recently was) truly divided.

I agree completely, except our country is still truly divided on most issue as evidenced by the discussion on "red" and "blue" zones itself.

I don't see how this could be the First World War for us (even if its the same Eastern European-Central Asian crisis that has helped set it off, 80 years later.) I just don't see going back to the Roaring Twenties again after two years. Anyway, if I'm right about the GI boundary, the oldest heroes were 12 then and they are 29 now, which is quite a difference.

The response we are planning seems to be attacks on terrorist camps. This has been a favorite of the Israelis against the Palestinians for many years. I'm sure it killed some bad guys but it never solved the problem.

It is clearly the Silents who are exerting the calming influence on this crisis. My problem is that at this point, I think the Silents are right. To cope with it successfully I think we're going to need a new gang of Boomers and Thirteeners. And I hate to say it, but this looks a lot like the early stages of Vietnam--counting on bombing to beat guerrillas or terrorists.

I am beginning to look into Arab cycles. The countries vary widely. Preliminary findings: Iraq had a very long crisis after independence that only came to an end around 1960 when the Bath party took over. That means Saddam's regime is still quite robust. Pakistan is in major unravelling mode, as Tristan mentioned. Egypt is about 7 years behind Pakistan. Algeria has just finished its (very violent) Awakening. Afghanistan is still, I think, in crisis, or just coming out of it. That's a bad time to take on a country. The young artists want to show they can be just as tough as the heroes.

I am going to look into the Saudis but I haven't yet. Palestine/Israel is in crisis, especially the former (Israel still has an Unravelling mood.)

Think back to the last saeculum. Hoover stubbornly clung to laissez-faire views as the nation entered its 4T, and by the end of his term he was to most a thoroughly ridiculous figure.

This is true, but the implication isn't. FDR and his collectivist economics had been mainly discredited by the late 30's. It took WWII for the US economy to recover. In believing that the last 70 years of economics in this country (less free market, more government, less reliance on community etc.) is inevitable, one is displaying the very "short societal memory" to which Strauss & Howe refer. That is, just because we, as a society, can't remember anything before FDR-style economics, doesn't mean that it's the best way.

As to 4T's decreasing freedom, that is in superficial ways only. It seems to me that most of the 4T crises we mention are ALL ABOUT INCREASING FEEDOM. Let's see:

• The Revolutionary War - freedom? yup, as a matter of fact the Declaration of Independence is a prototypical libertarian document
• Civil War - freedom? yup again - at least the slaves would think so - and even the south wanted less federal authority, i.e. greater freedom from the central government
• WWII - freedom? ask any Jewish person
  and on and on.

Wars that the US have fought have ALWAYS been in support of freedom/liberty. To suggest that this 4T will be over anything else doesn't make sense to me. I had always suspected that the next 4T would be over social security, i.e. that we Boomers and the
13'ers would get sick and tired of being forced to buy the government's worthless retirement insurance and demand to have the freedom to buy our own. With the ridiculous dependence upon the Social Security trust fund (both for recipients and for the general budget) such a scenario could lead to a 4T economic crisis. I just can't see an economic/environmental crisis wherein the proletariat rise up to smite the oppressors, as has been intimated by some on this forum.

As usual, just a cranky Boomer's ('54) thoughts...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: cecilalb on 2001-09-20 16:21 ]</font>

I believe David is right and this cannot be a World War I equivalent. I think he extends the birthyears of the Millennials too far back, but there's no question the oldest Millies are older than 16, which was the eldest GI cohort in 1917.


1991, with the oldest Millennials 11 by my own chronology, saw both the Gulf War and the end of the Cold War. I think that's a better fit, particularly the latter.


Regarding the saeculum in the Muslim world, let me suggest that these cultures won't necessarily follow the saeculum at all. It's a feature of relatively progressive societies, which those are not. They will of necessity participate in the global saeculum, as will everyone, but their generations may not fit the pattern.


Jenny and Doc, I'll respond to your posts re red/blue zone on Toby's new thread.

Re: The "is this it" debates: Remember, we're into the 4T by a week. It's only natural that 3T influence, and even 3T governing style, will hang around for a while. (Remember, Hoover governed 3T-style for his entire term!).

I remain convinced that this is the 4T simply because so many of the rules underlying the 3T have been changed by this event. With the generations lined up as they are--each neatly filling its age bracket, just like S&H said--it's hard to see things reverting to 3T style. (David, did you really mean to say that Millennials start in 1972?!).

Robocooper said:

Hoover stubbornly clung to laissez-faire views as the nation entered its 4T, and by the end of his term he was to most a thoroughly ridiculous figure.

And Cecilalb replied:

This is true, but the implication isn't. FDR and his collectivist economics had been mainly discredited by the late 30's. It took WWII for the US economy to recover.

And then Ben Weiss said:

Remember, Hoover governed 3T-style for his entire term!

Actually, all of you are wrong.


Hoover most certainly did not govern in laissez-faire fashion, nor in 3T fashion. About the only significant difference between his policies and those followed by Roosevelt in his first term is that FDR was willing to provide federal financial relief to the unemployed. Neither one believed in or practiced a hands-off policy. And while Hoover did try to deny the seriousness of the problem initially, by the middle of his term it was clear to him that the country was in Crisis. He was the one who coined the term "Great Depression."


Now, I'm not sure where Cecil is getting the idea that Roosevelt and his "collectivist economics" had been discredited by the late 1930s, since the main elements of the so-called Second New Deal are with us to this day, and FDR himself would be reelected twice more after that. But it has always struck me as a bit nonsensical to claim that the outcome of the Depression vindicated laissez-faire while at the same time claiming (correctly) that "It took WWII for the US economy to recover." This position completely ignores the mechanics of HOW the war brought us out of the Depression.


For during the war, both government spending and regulation of the economy reached heights that were inconceivable during the years of the New Deal. The federal budget quintupled, putting almost the entire depressed labor pool back into good jobs, spreading the wealth around far more equitably and raising consumer demand, which in turn led to the postwar boom. Meanwhile, regulation of the economy was put in place far beyond what left-wing economists (except for true socialists) had ever envisioned, and indeed much of it was later repealed as going too far except for purposes of meeting the wartime emergency.


If the war healed the U.S. economy -- and indeed it did -- that fact makes a case against laissez-faire, not in favor of it.

. The federal budget quintupled, putting almost the entire depressed labor pool back into good jobs, spreading the wealth around far more equitably and raising consumer demand, which in turn led to the postwar boom.

This, to me, is so completely nonsensical that I'm going to have to take awhile to craft a response. For now, let me just say, that the post-war boom had absolutely nothing to do w/ government intervention, but w/ 5 (or 16) years of pent-up demand - nothing more. As a matter of fact, one can make a good argument that the post-war boom would have been much larger than it was, had the government not gotten in the way...

As to my assertion that FDR economics had been discredited, take a look at his supreme court packing and lots of other stuff. Even you maintain that much of his program had to be repealed after the war. Also, remember that FDR only got a small fraction of what he wanted. At any rate, my main point was that we must not have a single sac. memory and extrapolate from there, as that is in direct contradiction to the entire generational theory.

Has anyone noticed how the mood seems to be changing?

Schoolchildren are decorationg their hallways with red, white, and blue while singing God Bless America.

And adults are adorning their homes and cars with flags.

Meanwhile, anyone who dares to comment negatively on where we are heading are calles "unpatriotic" or apologists for the terrorists.

Is this new mood the beginning of a 4t mood?

Lots of people have said that in terms of the 4T, we are like November 1929.

These references to 1929 are even more apt than just the position in the saeculum. See below. (for educational purposes only).

Another dismal day

A cloud of uncertainty, the prospect of war and a parade of profit warnings continue to stoke a sell-off. Dow and Nasdaq lose about 4% apiece.

How low can it go? Investors tested new levels again Thursday, selling off enough shares to take the Dow industrials and Nasdaq composite indexes down about 4% each.
What?s driving the selling? Well, fear of war mostly. Then, of course, there?s general uncertainty amid a mass of layoffs. Profit warnings pervade the trading environment, too, with today?s list of confessors including retailer Footstar (FTR, news, msgs) and publishers Knight Ridder (KRI, news, msgs) and Tribune Co. (TRB, news, msgs). The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that leveled the World Trade Center and crushed part of the Pentagon continue to damage everyday sales ? especially of hotel, casino, retail and travel companies.

?I think we?re just looking for a little bit of confidence,? Peter Henderson of Fleet Meehan Specialists told CNBC today.

Is an end to the stock plunge near? Not many investors seem to think so. But look hard, and you can find contrarians. Our own columnist Jon Markman, for instance, noted recently that the Nasdaq is now trading around its 10-year moving average. That means this could be bargain time, according to his column.

Almost every sector a loser

Nearly every sector was hit hard today. The S&P capital-goods group was ravaged, down 5.9%. Eaton (ETN, news, msgs), for instance, dived 7%. And Boeing (BA, news, msgs), which this week announced plans for some 30,000 layoffs, continued its doleful decline and hit 52-week lows. Other big sector losers: S&P transportation, down nearly 5%, technology, down close to 5%, consumer cyclicals, off nearly 4%.

The steel sector got slammed today as well. Nucor (NUE, news, msgs), citing weak prices and a slowdown in nonresidential construction, cut its third-quarter financial estimates. Investors, in turn, cut the steel maker?s share price by about 8% (thwarting a fairly strong StockScouter rating of 7 out of a possible 10).

Any gainers? Try precious metals and utilities. Enron (ENE, news, msgs), a standout today, rose more than 8%. For more on the utilities sector, tune in to Squawk Box tomorrow morning, when Robert Glynn, chairman and CEO of PG&E (PCG, news, msgs), discusses industry issues and prospects.

Could the reconstruction of offices lost in the World Trade Center collapse create big gains for certain companies? Consider this: Dell (DELL, news, msgs) processed some 24,000 disaster-related orders in the week following the attacks.

Bass sells some keys to Magic Kingdom

In one of the most intriguing developments of the day, some 135 million shares of Disney (DIS, news, msgs) were sold by one of the famous investor Bass brothers.

CNBC?s David Faber reported that for undisclosed reasons, Sid Bass parted with the giant stake at a price of $15 a share. Was the sale sparked by a margin call? That?s one rumor, and Faber notes that Bass investments in Argentina?s Nortel Inversora (NTL, news, msgs), Warnaco (WACGE, news, msgs) and others haven?t fared well lately.

The Bass brothers, Sid and Robert, had bought into Disney in the mid-1980s and seen their stake soar in value. In today?s transaction, however, Faber reported that Robert wasn?t involved. For a look at the mega-sale, see this Stocks to Watch segment.

His first words since the attack

In testimony during a long U.S. Senate hearing on economic conditions, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan offered a lonely word of caution. While lawmakers and the president seem bent on ramping up spending and deepening tax cuts, Greenspan warned that ?it is far more important to be right than to be quick.? His comments came even as President Bush prepared for a national speech in which some business bailout funds are expected to be offered up.

Greenspan admitted that domestic economic activity virtually ground to a halt immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks. But he was generally, and predictably, bullish on the long-term outlook. For a full story on his comments, including video of his Congressional appearance, see this story on MSNBC.com.

-- Emory Thomas Jr.

It may be that a land war in Asia that seems to be in view has come to the investing public as a selling opportunity. HTH

Princess Bride? "Never start a land war in Asia?"

Brian Rush wrote


For during the war, both government spending and regulation of the economy reached heights that were inconceivable during the years of the New Deal. The federal budget quintupled, putting almost the entire depressed labor pool back into good jobs, spreading the wealth around far more equitably and raising consumer demand, which in turn led to the postwar boom. Meanwhile, regulation of the economy was put in place far beyond what left-wing economists (except for true socialists) had ever envisioned, and indeed much of it was later repealed as going too far except for purposes of meeting the wartime emergency.


If the war healed the U.S. economy -- and indeed it did -- that fact makes a case against laissez-faire, not in favor of it.

I would think we also have to make a <u>clearer</u> distinction between the Post-WW2 economic expansion -- when much of the Europe's industrial might was in ruins -- and our wartime production output. Since a significant percentage of the products of our wartime economy were destined to be destroyed, we're talking about an economic boom with a (deliberately) limited shelf life.

The post-war boom, it seems to me, was equally founded on principles that are not free-market based. Though built on the foundations established during the war (GM's capacity to crank out vehicles combined with Harley Earl's jet plane-inspired designs immediately come to mind), we were mainly in a position to increase our contribution to the world's markets from a pre-1940 25% up to 67% -- at which it stayed until the 1960's, when it gradually shrunk to pre-war size.

With an enormous world market(subsidized in part by the Marshall Plan -- another government program) needing goods, I'm not certain a hands-off policy was even necessary to continue the boom. It was going to happen even if America was only nominally capitalist.

If we're looking for a generational reason for the post-war boom, I would put my money on the power wielded by the returning GI's. Composed of mostly blue-collar workers who willingly marched in lock-step for four years (in true Hero fashion), and looking for their just desserts, they were a union boss's dream.

GM gave the UAW unprecedented wage increases and job security to the ex-GI's who formed the bulk of their workers (mindful of Churchill's unceremonious ouster when the Brits voted the Labor Party into power in 1945), which further fueled the growth of the consumer economy.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin1952 on 2001-09-20 17:20 ]</font>

After reading the myriad posts debating whether we are still in 3T, or have moved into 4T, I continue to side with the 4T folks.

Not that I haven't harbored doubts of my own on whether we have entered Crisis. Indeed, as I begin to recover from the shock of Sept. 11, I myself am once again returning to my own personal Unravelling-era concerns-- e.g. how do I really feel about being married? would I rather return to my old job in Seattle? if I do, what about my aging parents here in Columbus?....and so on.

However, I keep coming back to what things were like in the early Awakening. JFK's murder was also a horrific national tragedy, on par with 9-11 in how deeply it affected every American alive at the time. After LBJ took the Oath of Office and settled into the White House, things did seem to "get back to normal" for awhile -- my own early Awakening childhood was most High-like up until the King and Kennedy assassinations of 1968, perhaps even a year or two beyond. But SOMETHING, a small, back-of-one's mind feeling that couldn't quite be identified, did change after Dallas. And that something didn't go away, even though on the surface society seemed to revert in many ways back to a 1T mood by mid -1964.

Something similar may happen here. We can still be in 4T, even though in many ways it may still feel like a 3T. A likely scenario: we bomb Afghanistan into oblivion this weekend, claim "victory", and have no further terrorist activity for at least six months or perhaps even a year or more. During that time, we may all revert back to our own 3T minutiae of the sort I described for myself. But on some level, just below the surface of our National psyche, Americans will not feel as safe, or as free, as we did on September 10th. Then, when either another terrorist attack or some other unrelated calamity finally occurs, we won't be surprised. And the 4T mood will come roaring back as if it never left.

Which, of course, it never really will have.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2001-09-20 17:54 ]</font>

Regarding the cure of the Depression and the postwar boom, I'm finding that a lot of posters are catching some of the essentials correctly, but failing to connect the dots.


First of all, to understand how the Depression was cured, it's important to understand what was wrong in the first place. And to understand that, you need to look at the right function of the economy, and that is NOT productivity or production or supply. It is demand.


There was absolutely nothing wrong with the U.S. economy's ability to produce goods and services during the Depression. The country was swamped with wealth that could not be distributed, goods that could not be sold. Why could they not be sold? Because people who wanted them didn't have the money to buy them. And why was that? Initially because jobs didn't pay enough, and later because jobs not only didn't pay enough but in large measure didn't exist.


During the war, on the other hand, there was a shortage of goods and services and no shortage of demand. Why? Because so much of the country's productivity was channeled into the war effort, at the same time as most people were employed at good wages. After the war, this accumulated buying power represented a huge demand for goods and services of all kinds, which prompted investment in consumer production, which kept employment high, which kept demand high, which kept profits high, which justified further investment -- and so on.


Cecil said:


the post-war boom had absolutely nothing to do w/ government intervention, but w/ 5 (or 16) years of pent-up demand - nothing more.


Not five or fifteen, but four: 1942-1945. Important to understand that "demand" in the technical economic sense does not mean merely the desire to buy, but also the ability to buy. For a consumer to represent "demand," he's got to have money. In the Depression, demand wasn't pent-up, it was extremely low, because so many people had no money.


Over the war years, yes, demand accumulated. But that in itself was due to government intervention, not, to be sure, done for that purpose, but nevertheless done to that effect.


As to my assertion that FDR economics had been discredited, take a look at his supreme court packing and lots of other stuff. Even you maintain that much of his program had to be repealed after the war.


Every leader makes mistakes. Most people would agree that Roosevelt's court-packing scheme was one of them. That doesn't mean FDR was "discredited."


What I said was that the wartime emergency regulations were repealed afterward. The key elements of the Second New Deal were Social Security and the Wagner Act. We still have those.


Kevin said:


With an enormous world market(subsidized in part by the Marshall Plan -- another government program) needing goods, I'm not certain a hands-off policy was even necessary to continue the boom. It was going to happen even if America was only nominally capitalist.


That "enormous world market" was almost entirely subsidized by the Marshall Plan. Again, demand means money as well as need. The war-devastated world had little money. With productivity shattered, there was little of value to offer in exchange for America's relatively undamaged productivity output. So there was, in fact, no "enormous world market." Both supply and demand were American almost in toto.


By the time world demand increased to make this statement no longer true, so had world production, to the point that the U.S. no longer held a monopoly. In fact, that's a tautology. "Beggar thy neighbor" is as pointless when the culprit is war as when it is a tarriff.


If we're looking for a generational reason for the post-war boom, I would put my money on the power wielded by the returning GI's.


I agree. But part of the reason for that is that the GIs tended to be skeptical of laissez-faire, as illustrated by your characterizing them as a union boss' dream.

I haven't got time to look up what I said, but I date the Millennials from 1982 and the GIs from 1905; that means Millennials are now nearing 20; GIs in 1917 were 12. My own *Millennial was born in 12/81 and is now a college sophomore.

I just read a very disturbing book (actually only the conclusion of it, but that was enough) by an Algerian who used to work for Algerian security forces but spent some time in prison and now lives in France. He's an Algerian prophet (born 1969, post-independence generation.) He says moss of the thousands of casualties in Algeria's anti-Islamic war are killed by the government, which doesn't want to eliminate the Islamicists, because they give them an excuse to terrorize the people and monopolize the oil money. It puts a very terrifying slant on the current situation. Do we really have any idea who our friends are?

Well, our non-GC President will be coming on in just a few minutes.

P. S. My older Xer son ('78) has been in Ecuador since June. I just told him he will be coming back to a different country. He doesn't believe me. I'll be very curious to see what he thinks when he gets here.