On 2001-12-06 10:22, JayN wrote:
Eni=jolras, I'm inclined to agree with you. Could you site some sources to support your hypothessis? I would be interested in researching this myself. The funny thing is that if you parallel the oh-ohs with the sixties and the teens with the seventies ou can see something like a Vietnam-type loss, only with the Islamic world. Then you see the loss of oil, the inflation, the collapse of prices, just like the seventies. Would the peak of the Crisis in the early 2020's parallel our eighties Cold War arms race...what about a complete and total hot war with a nuclear armed Islamic Middle Eastern superstate. What could be the candidate to precipitate this? Well, who knows. Our economy is so totally notted with our recession. But the truth is that the two real ticking time bombs are oil and old people (no I'm not bashing seniors; just their numbers). Oil resources may be cut off just when the Boomers start retiring and our economy is already strained by the shrinking
ratio of workers to retirees. Watch out.

jay,

LOL...don't sweat the spelling of my screen name. for some odd reason hardly anyone seems to be able to spell it!

if you check my previous posts both here and on other threads you will see that i have gone over in a good bit of detail the way i think the cycle, as i see it, will play out in the future, and your ruminations in your last post were spot on.

my speculation is, and it is nothing but that at this point, that the key to the scenario you describe would be the fall of the monarchy in saudi arabia. this is the site of the holiest areas in all of islam and if the monarchy were to fall and be taken over by more extreme elements they would certainly have the resources to not only obtain nuclear weapons, or other weapons of mass destruction, as well as potentially serving as a source of unification for all of islam and the middle east. or, if certain predominately muslim countries that were once part of the soviet union, which probably possess nuclear weapons even now, were to join such a coalition that would solve that problem for them as well.

if such a scenario were to occur, you would have a unified muslim coalition that would potentially threaten israel, russia, southern and eastern europe, and the interests of the united states. this coalition would also likely feel that it had something to prove since it has suffered one military defeat after another at the hands of israel, europe and the u.s and would also very likely make the economic argument that the corrupt regimes formerly in power, and supported by the u.s., had exploited their national wealth for their own purposes and now is the time to start spreading the "wealth" among the "people." since demographic shifts in the u.s at the time will make it extremely vulnerable economically, such a group would likely possess a lot of pricing power if they chose to use it. the subsequent economic suffering in the u.s would likely be seen in that part of the world as only just and long overdue. in the u.s. it will likely foment calls for some kind of action to stop the suffering. and you can see where the possible conflict arises from there.

as far as our current economy, i must disagree that we are "knotted" in this recession. as i have said before, liquidity is the mother's milk of prosperity and our economy is currently swimming in it. i will suggest again that we are on the verge of another 7-10 years of prosperity leading up into this next more serious conflict. but as for a "shortage" of natural resource supplies just as demographics starts to work against us instead of for us, and a substantial upmove in the inflation rate, that is, i think, a strong likelihood probably in the next decade.

as for sources to research, i would start with the work of robert degersdorff who wrote what was for me the breakthrough article in a 1979 issue of cycles magazine, where he postulated the concept of paired k-wave cycles of inflation and disinflation lasting 100-108 years. that, coupled with identifiying the key signposts in every long wave that typically coincided with turning points allowed me to first put the model i currently use together back in 1985. it got its first test with the 1987 stock market crash, which it successfully passed. the next key event it called for was a monetary expansion which occurred with the major expansion in the monetary base in the aftermath of the crash. the next key event was a popular war which was fulfilled in the gulf war. after the normal post war recession the next key event the model forecasted was a 20 year technology boom that would be punctuated with a lull, or bear market, around the 10 year mark or 2000-2001. this also has occurred right on schedule. if the model continues to hold true then we still have 7-10 more years of prosperity before the unpopular peak cycle war strikes, probably in the 2009-2013 time frame, followed by a very serious post-war recession, then inflation which i think will be much worse than the 70s, then a severe monetary contraction that brings inflation under control along with much more conservative political forces, then a period of rampant speculation in financial assets, and finally followed by the final liquidation or "great devaluation" that will likely usher in a 100-108 year period of deflation or disinflation and will very likely coincide with the clear decline of the west and the ascendance of the eastern world in terms of global power and influence.

On 2001-12-06 10:37, JayN wrote:
I must take exception to one thing Enjolras.
You compared 911 in its impact on younger generations to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I would argue it resembles the Kennedy assasination more. The assasination really impacted the group of young people (especially Gen X, just like the Silent were impacted by Kennedy)..the Kennedy assasination was the point of no return into Vietnam just like 911 is our point of no return with terrorism. Even the hearings that are being promised into why the nation was unprepared or the impact of military tribulnals remind me of nothing other than the Warren Commision. It will of course reach some conclusion that is "officially acceptable" but many will dissent. It just seems to make so much sense.

jay,

i would not really disagree with you in any strong degree on this point except that the 911 tragedy was precipitated by an enemy from "without" as was the cuban missile crisis. it also added extra meaning to all the "duck and cover" drills that school children of the day had to undergo much as all the extra emphasis on "security" today is affecting children and people in general. also the missile crisis was the event that pushed the market out of its mid boom malaise and ushered in the "go-go" 60s that finally culminated in the vietnam war.

i do think you made a good point in an earlier post that osama bin laden may well be analagous to john brown as a pre-civil war catalyzing force. but i also think it may be a mistake to assume that the next peak cycle war will be a major conflict. 84 year crisis cycles indicate that in or around the year 2027 will be the time for the next major conflict and that would be too late for the peak cycle war according to my model. my thoughts are that this is likely to be a trough war like world war II but we shall see what develops. i have always found that the key to success when using such theories is not to be too rigid about them, since they are very long term in scope and a normal margin of error could encompass years. but their most valuable use is enabling you to anticipate themes that the future will follow that you can use in planning your own endeavors whether personal, business or what have you.

On 2001-12-06 10:30, Carl Fitzpatrick wrote:

This whole post is very insightful, well reasoned, and, I think, accurate. I?m bewildered by what you said about the 2T. I have no idea how old you are, but my experience of the ?Consciousness Revolution? was quite different.

Carl, to answer your question, I am a first-wave 13er so I was too young to fully comprehend everything when it was happening. But as I look back on it, I see an emotional response to the 1T. A response was justified but any response founded upon emotion rather than reason is doomed to err, go overboard, and commit some of the same wrongs which are intended to be righted. But I do believe that Boomers generally began discarding some of the passion through the 3T such that they are now arriving at a more reasoned response advocating true pluralism (including respect for Christianity). So I am hopeful on this score.

You get to the heart of the matter with your discussion of exclusive Truth. Christianity is such an indescribably beautiful thing which gets tainted by certain people who claim to act in its name. Much more can be said, but I better cut it short for now.

To Enjolras:
I find the idea of inflationary cycles quite intriguing. While I haven't the time at the moment due to work and school to research it myself I will be looking later. At any rate I will take what you say for now as being essentially accurate. Perhaps you may be right about the Oh-Oh's in certain respects comparing to the Sixties. When 911 struck, I initially thought that this was it and that we're entering the next Great Depression or Great Devaluation or what have you. While we may not experience growth over the next several years comparable to the 90's, growth we will probably see. The increase in the Stock Market after tis temporary one week slide following the attacks gives me casue to pause. The military budget is going up over the next five years and regardless of what you think of more military spending it usually does help to feed some growth in the short to medium run. Monetary policy and fiscal policy look rather loose and the government is set to run deficits in the tens of billions each year out to at least 2005. On a percentage of GDP basis, it probably won't be as bad as the deficits we ran up in the mid-eighties or early nineties but we can probably expect a dramatic departure from 98 to '01 when we ran three consecutive fiscal surpluses. Bush is now calling for more corporate tax cuts and this will only worsen the red ink.

This article sums up the economic situation right now real well. It's from today's New York Times.



THE ECONOMY

Unemployment Rate Climbs to 5.7% as
Economy Continues to Shed Jobs

By MICHAEL BRICK

ore than 300,000 Americans in
nearly every line of work lost jobs
last month, the government reported today,
suggesting that the recession may not be
over as soon as many economists had
hoped.

The unemployment rate jumped to 5.7
percent in November from 5.4 percent in
October, reaching its highest mark since
August 1995. Since the Sept. 11 attacks,
businesses have cut 799,000 jobs.

"The longer the labor market deterioration
persists, the more worried consumers may
become," said John Youngdahl, a senior
economist with Goldman, Sachs.

Wall Street economists had expected a
report of fewer than 200,000 job cuts and a
slightly lower unemployment rate. The
Bureau of Labor Statistics had already
estimated that 415,000 jobs were lost the previous month, and it revised that
number even higher today, to 468,000. Combined, the last two months have
had the sharpest reduction in payrolls since 1980.

The number of jobs cut in November, estimated at 331,000, was the
sharpest since a drop of 340,000 in August 1983, during a strike against
AT&T, or since January 1982, when payrolls declined 383,000.

"We have an economy that's still in decline," said Peter Hooper, chief
domestic economist at Deutsche Bank North America. Economists have
estimated that the current recession began in March.

John Mullins, an analyst at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, said, "If we had
had a terrorist attack in 1997 or 1998, when the economy was going great,
then you could separate out what was caused by the terrorist attack."

There were job cuts in nearly every industry but finance. Manufacturers shed
163,000 jobs, and service companies cut 70,000.

Economists said they expect that the Federal Reserve will reduce short-term
interest rates by another quarter point when its policy-making committee
meets on Tuesday. The Fed has already reduced rates 10 times this year, by
a total of four percentage points, to 2 percent.

Congress is debating a package of tax breaks to stimulate the economy, but
Democrats and Republicans are at odds over who should benefit.

How does all this matter? Well, I'll try to sum it up my hopethesis as best as I can in a paragraph or so after my predictions. Here goes:

Short run (next year or two):
Expect rising unemployment, rising deficits, rising defense speding, looser interest rates
Stock market will slowly increase. Baby boomers not yet retired. Number of mid 40's workers (those born in 1957-1959) still growing.

Medium term (2-7 down the line):
Expect slower growth, slightly declining deficits, defense spending to peak, interest rates to rise a bit, Stock market to stagnate neither growing or declining a lot. Number
of mid 40's workers(those born 1959 to 1964) to peak and slowly decline.

Long term (more than 7 years down the line):
This is hardest to see. Projected massive waves of baby boomer retirement sucking more money out of the retirement systems, more money being drawn out of retirement accounts, oil being dramatically reduced or cut off due to Arab and Islamic instability, rising inflation and dramatically deep recession with steep unemployment ensue, possible massive red ink with no projected end in sight. The "baby busters" (those born starting around 1964) enter the mid-40's demographic and the number of midlife workers decline dramatically.

Please not that predictions about the economy are extraordinarily difficult to make. For evidence I offer column by a conservative, but balanced columnist.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/s...20010118.shtml

How can I tell all this? Well, if you read the papers you know that fiscal and monetary policy do have some short term to medium term effect on the economy. For example, raise interest rates and depress growth thereby increasing deficits through lower tax revenues and higher spending on unemployment and welfare. Lower interest rates and do the reverse increasing deficits and so forth. I am no economist but a lot of it is common sense. Long term economics seem to move quite nicely with numbers of workers. There are two determinants of the size of an economy- numbers of workers multiplied by the productivity of each worker. Economic growth and stock market values are particularly important as relates to the numbers of workers in midlife (around mid 40's to early 50's) since workers typically invest the most in their mid 40's when they reach the peak of their earnings and they are no longer as encumbered by things like paying for kids. College money has presumably already been put away by then or at least payed for by financial aid. While more people are having kids later the numbers still generally relate well enough the model still holds up more or less. It is an investment-led model of how the economy does. I've linked here for more data.


http://csf.colorado.edu/authors/Alex.../spendwav.html

http://csf.colorado.edu/authors/Alex...dwav.html#fig1

http://csf.colorado.edu/authors/Alex...e/spendwav.gif

jay,

i have been a professional trader and money manager for nearly 20 years now and i have seen a great many things in the markets over that time.

when i first started trading gold, back when i was in college, so-called experts were calling for a depression then. when the stock markets turned in 1982 so-called experts were screaming then about how high the debt was, particularly LDC debt, and were saying that a depression would occur at any time.

all during the 80s when the market soared they kept saying it would happen "any time now!" when the 87 crash struck they all stepped out for a collective, "i told you so", here it is! that big mountain of debt was about to come tumbling down upon our collective heads! when that did not work they fretted over the aftermath of the crash, the dangers of derivatives, the potential "quagmire" the gulf war would be, how the post war recession would turn into a depression and george bush sr. was the next hoover to reagan's coolidge.

as the markets recovered in the 90s book stores sold tons of copies of books proclaiming the "coming depression" of this or that year. in 1994 they worried. in 1998 they proclaimed the long term capital management debacle as the beginning of the end. then it was Y2K. now, most recently, it was the world trade center disaster.

there is an old saying in the community of stock analysts and prognosticators, "predict loudly and predict often!" and that is exactly what these types have been doing for as long as i have been around. eventually, they will be right, but as i have tried to explain in my postings on here history shows us that there are a clear set of catalysts that typically take place before anything like a "great devaluation" is likely to occur, and they just have not yet occurred.

boom periods like the one we are in now, and which we are in the process of entering the second half of as we speak, are incredibly resilient. they can absorb problem after problem and crisis after crisis with hardly even breaking a sweat, and this one is no exception. but these boom periods have seldom had a life of less than 15-20 years so this one should still have a ways to go. plus they have always been bookended by wars over the last 250 years of u.s. and european history. it is possible that such historical patterns can be broken, but i have seen no evidence yet to make me think that is even a possibility at the moment.

but until then i fully expect we will have plenty of people lamenting the enormous debt in the world and all manner of other looming problems. and one day, probably sooner than any of us hopes, these chickens will come home to roost. but just as certain clouds on the horizon warn us that a storm is on the way there are also clouds to watch for that warn us that an economic storm is on the way, and they have only just begun to gather. more are on the way and more are needed before the storm finally begins in earnest. there should still be plenty of time to prepare if a person begins now, but now is the time. it will be far more difficult for the average person starting in the next decade.

Thursday night on CNN Orin Hatch stated there were over 7 thousand killed at the World Trade Center. Patrick Leahy was being interviewed with Orin H. and he didn't comment on this number. Once in awhile the news media, usually on the moving headlines on the bottom of the screen,tells us that the toll is 3000 something.

Politicians love numbers..they can use em, size em up,stretch em, twist em, anyway they want. Personally its more of a use of one's time to play with silly puddy. One may do the same things with that as politicos with statistics and at least the intention is more forthright. What did Samuel Clemens once say?

On 2001-12-08 13:17, JayN wrote:
Politicians love numbers..they can use em, size em up,stretch em, twist em, anyway they want. Personally its more of a use of one's time to play with silly puddy. One may do the same things with that as politicos with statistics and at least the intention is more forthright. What did Samuel Clemens once say?

I believe it was "Lies, damn lies, and Statistics"

Try this article article on for size.http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/go...dont_kill.html

"Lies, Damn lies, and Statistics" was a line used by Benjamin Disraeli.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

In making comparisons of 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, Black Tuesday, Wall Street Bombing or whatever, just keep in mind:
History never repeats...but it often rhymes.

On the Grey Champion thread is was suggested that our situation is comparable to the Glorious Revolution. If so, it may have been triggered by an attack that has been compared to Pearl Harbor. Let's not expect our Crisis to closely follow the example of any one other Crisis.

Just when I thought the "Anti-War" movement couldn't get any wackier comes this little gem from those patriots at "Indymedia".

Award John Walker the Medal of Honor.

http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?...&group=webcast

Beyond the obvious stupidity of this article, there's the more subtle stupidity that, in order to give John Walker this award, it would have to be voted on and presented by Congress and the President, the same "criminals" and "Terrorists" that the article condemns.

The American Left is doing a far worse job of weeding out and marginalizing it's nutballs than the American Right are doing with the Religious Right. That worries me, as these Left wing nuts are doing more damage by weakening the Left ad their very correct opposition to the domestic overreaching of Congress, Ashcroft and the Bush administration.

I never believed that there was anyone who wasn't actually a MEMBER of the Taliban who could defend the actions of John Walker. I guess I was wrong - moral equivalency really has become the American Cancer.

Why is this so hard to understand? The man took up arms against his countrymen and expressed sympathy and approval for their slaughter. This, along with the British Muslims who went to fight with the Taliban is the very definition of treason - the only crime specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

Even if, for some reason, the US declines to prosecute Walker, he's still a Taliban and is still guilty of crimes against the AFGHAN people. Wouldn't taking him back here without submitting him to Afghan justice be just as dismissive of international law?

I wish I could say this was an isolated opinion, but here's something from SF Gate by Louis Freedberg:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...07/ED75461.DTL

Chronicle senior writer, Louis Freedberg, writes, "Instead of labeling him a traitor, as we did to Aaron Burr, Tokyo Rose and Ezra Pound, President Bush should allow Walker's parents to fly him back to Fairfax, and let him get his life back on track. We'd want nothing less for our own children, who could easily have found themselves in a similar mess."

From what I'm hearing, Bush is considering just that. I am serious.

It's a 'kinder, gentler' world we live in today than ever before in the history of the world.

4000 murdered notwithstanding, I guess.

On 2001-12-09 14:34, Delsyn wrote:
Just when I thought the "Anti-War" movement couldn't get any wackier comes this little gem from those patriots at "Indymedia".

Award John Walker the Medal of Honor.

http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?...&group=webcast

Beyond the obvious stupidity of this article, there's the more subtle stupidity that, in order to give John Walker this award, it would have to be voted on and presented by Congress and the President, the same "criminals" and "Terrorists" that the article condemns.

The American Left is doing a far worse job of weeding out and marginalizing it's nutballs than the American Right are doing with the Religious Right. That worries me, as these Left wing nuts are doing more damage by weakening the Left ad their very correct opposition to the domestic overreaching of Congress, Ashcroft and the Bush administration.

I never believed that there was anyone who wasn't actually a MEMBER of the Taliban who could defend the actions of John Walker. I guess I was wrong - moral equivalency really has become the American Cancer.

Why is this so hard to understand? The man took up arms against his countrymen and expressed sympathy and approval for their slaughter. This, along with the British Muslims who went to fight with the Taliban is the very definition of treason - the only crime specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

Even if, for some reason, the US declines to prosecute Walker, he's still a Taliban and is still guilty of crimes against the AFGHAN people. Wouldn't taking him back here without submitting him to Afghan justice be just as dismissive of international law?

I wish I could say this was an isolated opinion, but here's something from SF Gate by Louis Freedberg:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...07/ED75461.DTL

I've known two Medal of Honor winners in my life, and Johnny Jihad ain't no Medal of Honor winner!

Delsyn, I haven't commented on this thread before but your statement regarding the article you referenced caught my eye, and as a conservative and a Naval officer I couldn't agree with you more. I support the idea of a "left" as much as I do a "right" in the hopes that they may balance each other out over time. However, what those loonies at the Independent News have done in my case is make me wonder just what the "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" clause in my oath of office really means! They sound like "enemies" to me but maybe I'm just a benighted old salt who need to hang 'em up. Am I wrong?

Delsyn:

I would have thought that the Indymedia article was a satire. Are they really serious? As to the SFGate article, the author is a moron. There has been no declaration of war as he claims and this is not some 17 year-old kid whose parents need to allow him to "get his life in order." He is 20 years old, old enough to vote for president, old enough to get drafted and killed, and should be old enough to drink a beer if not for our ridiculously hypocritical and inconsistent laws. The author from the Bay Area needs to put his pipe down. As for Indymedia, "surely they can't be serious."

Mr. Lamb:

The number of those murdered at the Trade Towers was below 3500.

On 2001-12-09 17:19, Mike Eagen wrote:
I've known two Medal of Honor winners in my life, and Johnny Jihad ain't no Medal of Honor winner!

Delsyn, I haven't commented on this thread before but your statement regarding the article you referenced caught my eye, and as a conservative and a Naval officer I couldn't agree with you more. I support the idea of a "left" as much as I do a "right" in the hopes that they may balance each other out over time. However, what those loonies at the Independent News have done in my case is make me wonder just what the "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" clause in my oath of office really means! They sound like "enemies" to me but maybe I'm just a benighted old salt who need to hang 'em up. Am I wrong?

You're not necessarily wrong, Mike, so long as you draw the distinction between being an a**hole and being a traitor. If these morons want to shout "Death to America" from their Web page - that's their right. It's the responsibility of other American civilians to oppose them via OUR greatest weapons, free speech and the ballot box (I don't think either of us wants another Eugene V. Debs). It's when people like this pick up a weapon, enlist in an enemy military and point those weapons at other Americans that you need to go to work. That's the difference between the American military under the rule of law and a banana republic death squad torching an opposition printing press.

I'm not blind to the "satirical" intent of this piece, that doesn't excuse the vile political statements that underlie it:

1. Calling the soldiers and CIA agents who are risking their lives over in Afghanistan "criminals" and "terrorists". I thought we learned this lesson after the disgraceful way we treated our Vietnam vets. Even if you disagree with the current administration over the necessity for a war (which is a perfectlyvalid position), to metaphorically (or actually in some cases) spit on our men and women in uniform is unecessary and wholly inappropriate.

American soldiers ultimately follow the orders of the President, so long as they obey and carry out those orders in a lawful and honorable manner, they do not deserve to bear the brunt of a civilian's disagreement or contempt for our civilian Commander-in-Chief.

2. Disrespect for the Medal of Honor. This is an award that's supposed to be given to military personnel who perform far above and beyond the call of duty. If you want to get on America's case, talk about how many ethnic minorities who gave this country the last full measure of devotion were denied the award because of racist policies and politicians who shamefully took years to award it to heroes like the Tuskeegee Airmen and Japanese-American units who fought in Europe in WWII. The medal itself is symbolic of the best that this country can produce - that deserves respect.

3. The moral equivalency of awarding the Medal of Honor for defending the Taliban. This is a regime that it takes a Saddam Hussein-like level of moral depravity to defend. Are the authors of the article saying that America should be more like the Taliban - that these are regimes that we should be spending American lives and treasure defending? The author of this piece is a person with no moral compass whatsoever - the ones who host this piece of garbage are just as guilty.

I included the piece from the SF Gate because the difference between these two articles is one of degree, not of kind.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld declined comment last week when asked if he considered Walker a traitor.

I predict this guy skates... in honour of the fallen heros at the battle of Columbia University, circa 1968. He'll be offered a tenured position at the University of Wisconsin... Willie Patton will be pleased. :smile:

"Mr. Lamb:

The number of those murdered at the Trade Towers was below 3500."

Good night! This changes everything. What the heck are we doing over there killing those guys. Somebody has got to get this news to Bush now, and stop this senseless killing.

"All we are saying, is give peace a chance."





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc S. Lamb on 2001-12-10 06:19 ]</font>

Marc, you?re more fun than a room full of Republicans. This whole thing is just another Wild West show?Teddy Roosevelt charging up San Juan Hill. The Great White Fleet. Whatever. It?s not even a war, it?s a police action to apprehend criminals. Don?t forget that Manhattan was bombed in 1929, before October. You and I both know it?s a 3T?and that your gambit will take us to a 4T better than anything I can think of.

Besides, John was a vegetarian. All he was saying was ?Give peas a chance.?

On 2001-12-09 20:11, cbailey wrote:
Mr. Lamb:

The number of those murdered at the Trade Towers was below 3500.

True, but when you add the 125 killed at the Pentagon, plus the 200 or so airline passengers and crew on the four hijacked air planes, you get close to 4,000. IMHO, 4,000 dead is a good round estimate.

Is it possible that Johnny Jihad is an undercover CIA agent?

On 2001-12-10 10:10, Pat Mathews wrote:
Is it possible that Johnny Jihad is an undercover CIA agent?

The sound you hear in the background is the X-Files theme. Give me a break Pat. It just doesn't work that way.