While the 4th Turning begins to proceed more rapidly, few are noticing a quiet revolution taking place in manned space flight. NASA is evolving from vertically launched space vehicles to horizontally launched ones with all parts reusable. One of the things right now is that the Shuttle, which is proclaimed as reusable, is actually only part reusable. This vehicle will be much more fully.

Looking at this from the generational angle, GIs managed science in the 60's, Silent in the 70's, and now its finally the Boomers' shot. It's amazing that NASA had a new space vehicle type every few years in the High and Awakening but in the Unraveling has only used one new vehicle (the Shuttle) based on Awakening-era technology. Now, the Fourth Turning may finally get its shot. And what's interesting is how this technology can be adapted to both manned and unmanned flight uses. This allows for multiple missions and I could see something like Millenial astronauts in the 2010s using this vehicle for either civilian or military missions. it might be good for weather or new astronomy observation. I'm not sure. I think the possibilities are endless. The recent,albeit unsuccessful, attempt of Justin Timberlake to fly into space shows that Generation Y is excited about the prospect of flying in earth orbit.

This vehicle might be good for finally realizing the dream of making it to Mars or the Moon.

I mean the vehicle would be useful for constructing a station in leo for the purpose of launching a ship to Mars or the Moon.

No Pilots in Future Space Shuttles
Wed May 1, 6:23 PM ET
By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - The replacement for NASA (news - web sites)'s aging space shuttles may take off like a plane, be propelled by booster rockets that fly back to Earth and, in one of the more radical moves, eliminate pilots.

Photos

AP Photo


The reusable space plane, equipped with crew escape and automatic landing systems, would be far safer than the shuttle, officials said Tuesday in unveiling 15 design concepts. It also would be much cheaper to operate, they promised.

The goal is to have it flying by 2012, right around the time the space shuttles should be retiring.

"It's a little bit smaller vehicle so it may not be quite as impressive and loud and energetic maybe as when the shuttle takes off," said Dennis Smith, manager of NASA's $4.8 billion Space Launch Initiative program. "But it has some pretty neat attributes to it."

For instance, the booster rockets could peel away, turn around and fly back to the launch site. The shuttle's two boosters parachute into the ocean and are retrieved by ships.

NASA would use its new spaceship to transport astronauts and equipment to the international space station (news - web sites) ? separately on slightly different types of craft. The commercial industry would use the same system to launch satellites, with military involvement likely as well.

Among NASA's main objectives: to lower the cost of delivering payloads to orbit from $10,000 a pound on the shuttle to $1,000 a pound or less, and reduce the risk of a deadly catastrophe from the current 1-in-almost 500 to 1-in-10,000.

The space shuttle lacks a viable crew escape system for launch, something that is crucial if NASA hopes to achieve its desired safety margin, Smith said.

"It's very aggressive, there's no question about it," he said.

Smith said ejection seats are being considered along with flyaway crew modules. Kennedy Space Center (news - web sites) likely would serve as the launch site, although that is not a requirement. Both vertical and horizontal liftoffs are being considered.

The spaceship might be able to double as a space station lifeboat. Pilots may not be needed to take up space station crews, Smith noted.

Over the past year, NASA whittled down the list of ideas from thousands to 15 represented by three industry teams: Boeing of Seal Beach, Calif.; Lockheed Martin Corp. of Denver; and a combined Orbital Sciences Corp. of Dulles, Va., and Northrop Grumman of El Segundo, Calif.

The concepts rely on two-stage rocketships, with engines propelled by kerosene, hydrogen or a combination.

NASA plans to settle on two concepts next year. Full-scale development of one of the ships would begin in 2006, with the first flight hopefully in 2012. In case of delays, NASA plans to keep the shuttles flying until 2020.

"We went to the moon in nine years and we developed the shuttle in eight years," Smith said. "Here we are 10 years away and really it comes down to a commitment to get behind the new system."

Hi!

jds1958xg wrote, in part:

... Barring a miracle, and I don't expect one, this issue (loss of investor confidence) will have every likelihood of combining with the Social Security and Medicare Solvency Issue, as both get the 3T 'politics as usual' treatment again this election year, to provide the critical mass that starts a chain reaction leading to The Great Devaluation - possibly as early as next year sometime. If this does happen, look for the Regeneracy to begin in 2004 or 2005. Look also for a Democrat or Green President (the first GC) to be sworn in on 21 January 2005, or thereabouts.

I may not have your pessimistic streak, but I fully agree that the politicians are in for a rude awakening this coming election. France was a good foreshadow; we are very likely to have our first 4T government. Since I believe that Dubya is NOT the GC, I'll have to believe the Democrats are going to win. Maybe McCain will walk away from the Reps, run as a Dem, and be the first cross-over US President - unless you count Reagan, of course.


The Chinese would just call these "interesting times", and leave it at that.

_________________
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together :wink:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David '47 on 2002-05-02 11:55 ]</font>

On 2002-05-02 11:51, David '47 wrote:
Since I believe that Dubya is NOT the GC, I'll have to believe the Democrats are going to win. Maybe McCain will walk away from the Reps, run as a Dem, and be the first cross-over US President - unless you count Reagan, of course.

OK, but I will point out that here, you are making an assumption that too many in this forum make.

You are assuming that a 4T requires that the office of the President of the United States be held by a GC.

There are, what, 6? 8? 12? 4T's described in S & H, and only the last two involved a president who could be argued to be a GC.

We could, of course, make that assumption. That is, now that the U.S. exists and has a president, we could assume that a 4T will always involve a GC president.

However, making that assumption, to me, makes the whole theory too deterministic, (as does the assumption that every turning must have a catalyst, which, I believe, S & H argue is not strictly the case). The S & H theory deals in statistical trends of entire generations, not determinative predictions of what will happen.

It's the difference between saying it will snow in Wisconsin next winter and saying it will snow next December 14 in Milwaukee.

The GC is a generational archetype, not one of a subset of all U.S. presidents.

Also, we shouldn't assume that the first 4T president will be a GC. FDR could be, because there was no term limit. He ruled for virtually the whole 4T. This won't happen this time (barring a constitutional change). Lincoln was, only if it is assumed that the 4T lasted only 5 years as S&H believe. That was an anomaly. The next GC may not appear until the Crisis Climax is ready; that might not be until at least 2020.

Dubya is assuredly not GC material. But the next president may not be either. And the 4T may not come until after 2008 anyway.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-05-02 17:09 ]</font>

On 2002-05-02 17:08, Eric A Meece wrote:
Also, we shouldn't assume that the first 4T president will be a GC. FDR could be, because there was no term limit. He ruled for virtually the whole 4T. This won't happen this time (barring a constitutional change). Lincoln was, only if it is assumed that the 4T lasted only 5 years as S&H believe. That was an anomaly. The next GC may not appear until the Crisis Climax is ready; that might not be until at least 2020.

Dubya is assuredly not GC material. But the next president may not be either. And the 4T may not come until after 2008 anyway.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-05-02 17:09 ]</font>

First off, 4T's have been known to produce constitutional changes. We could see some this time. However, who said there could only be *one* GC President per 4T? Still, I do agree that there will be a GC in the White House when the Climax does hit (one of many GC's active at that point), which I also believe will be sometime between 2016 and 2020. However, I do think we are in the very earliest stages of 4T (pre-regeneracy). I will concede the possibility, however, that in compensation for the premature catalyst, the 4T timeline may well run in slow motion at first, to give the relevant generations time to age into their assigned roles. Once that has happened, events would move much more rapidly towards the 4T climax.

Excellent discussion by all.

Excellent Theories by the authors, though not perfected yet.

In response to the newest post, does the GC have to be president? If you look at Benjamin Franklin as that eras GC then he certainly was not president. Couldn't it be a member of congress, or some other social leader?

Sign of a 3T or 4T?

Foreign Policy Is King
No one is paying attention to domestic policy right now, and they're not going to any time soon.

by David Brooks

David Brooks, senior editor

I DON'T THINK domestic policy is coming back.

Since September 11, foreign policy has aroused Americans' political passions. Still, most politicos assumed that over time the world would revert to normal, and domestic bread-and-butter issues would again dominate the agenda. Democrats especially talked this way because (a) they didn't care to talk much about foreign policy, where Bush is succeeding, and (b) there is currently no definable Democratic approach to foreign policy, and coming up with one would split the party six ways from Sunday.

But it has been seven months and foreign policy is still front and center. And we haven't even gone to war with Iraq yet.

Here are the reasons foreign policy will continue to dominate politics:

1) There is no money for any big domestic policy changes. Domestic discretionary spending--the money that goes for education, welfare, etc.-- is now the same percentage of GDP as it was in 1960. The most recent budget forecast that by the end of the decade, non-defense discretionary spending would be, as a percentage of GDP, at the same level it was in 1941. That's because entitlement programs are swallowing the federal budget, and will continue to do so as the boomers age. Bigger entitlements mean there are no resources to launch big new ideas.

2) The Bush tax cuts are not going to be repealed. Many Democrats would love to, but they'd risk losing the Senate if they made that a major campaign issue. Hence, what little non-entitlement money is sloshing around Washington will go to pay for the tax cut, leaving even fewer pennies for domestic initiatives.

3) That debate is over. We spent the 20th century arguing about the size of government. The Fascists and Communists wanted it huge, the libertarians wanted it teeny. We've now settled in at a resting point. The federal government accounts for about a fifth of the GDP, and it is staying there. Hillary Clinton tried to increase government. Newt Gingrich tried to shrink it. Both failed. Nobody can get passionate over minuscule wiggles in the size of government: 22.3 percent versus 22.7 percent.

4) Foreign policy really is interesting these days. It's not all trade deals and economics, the way we thought it was becoming in the 1990s. It is about fundamental moral and political values. Fundamental clashes of ideas, not only between us and the Islamists, but between us and the Europeans and the Chinese. We really are different from other people around the globe, and those differences are the stuff of conflict and passion.

5) America is the issue. Never before in human history, Yale's Paul Kennedy assures us, has the disparity between the top power in the world and the other great powers been so wide. The cultural, economic, and political might of America is bound to be the big issue of the coming years (replacing the size-of-government debate). We will get dragged into that argument again and again.

6) The opportunities are abroad. If you are a kid who wants to achieve something significant, where are your opportunities? Abroad. There are countries crying for democracy and freedom (after their own fashion). There are huge environmental problems that are far bigger than just getting to the 99.9 percentile standard--which is what domestic environmentalism has largely become. Wouldn't you rather spend your life doing that global stuff rather than devoting yourself to a set of domestic economic squabbles that are really tiny deviations around the center?

There have been periods in the past when foreign policy dominated politics. The 1960 presidential debates were largely foreign policy conversations. Can anybody remember the big domestic policy arguments that split people in the 1950s? It was foreign policy that mattered most.

Oh well, I let my subscription to Foreign Affairs and the National Interest lapse. Time to re-up.

David Brooks is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard.

On 2002-05-03 03:39, Tristan Jones wrote:

There have been periods in the past when foreign policy dominated politics. The 1960 presidential debates were largely foreign policy conversations. Can anybody remember the big domestic policy arguments that split people in the 1950s? It was foreign policy that mattered most.



David Brooks is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard.

I think the collapse of the American economy or large portions of it might bring back the paltry domestic "issues" that the Newscorpians deride.

Hi!

This is pretty funny...


<center>
The Next Oprah?</center>





Three tees are made of these, who am I to disagree? :lol:

It kinda reminds me of what was really quite obvious to some (including me) even as far back as October...
<center>
The ONION October 3rd 2001</center>

firemind took me to task, when I wrote:

Since I believe that Dubya is NOT the GC, I'll have to believe the Democrats are going to win.

OK, but I will point out that here, you are making an assumption that too many in this forum make.


You are assuming that a 4T requires that the office of the President of the United States be held by a GC...

Yes I do, because the global role of the US has changed so dramatically, that there is no other leadership role of adequate weight to displace the power and authority of the Presidency. Bush is a light weight, but he controls the debate. Randomly selecting a suitably powerful alternative, who's asking what Bill Gates will do?

There are, what, 6? 8? 12? 4T's described in S & H, and only the last two involved a president who could be argued to be a GC.

We could, of course, make that assumption. That is, now that the U.S. exists and has a president, we could assume that a 4T will always involve a GC president.

However, making that assumption, to me, makes the whole theory too deterministic, (as does the assumption that every turning must have a catalyst, which, I believe, S & H argue is not strictly the case). The S & H theory deals in statistical trends of entire generations, not determinative predictions of what will happen.

It's the difference between saying it will snow in Wisconsin next winter and saying it will snow next December 14 in Milwaukee.

The GC is a generational archetype, not one of a subset of all U.S. presidents.

You're describing a leaderless movement. That assumes the world is (or will be) based on an anarcho-syndicalist structure, if that isn't an oxymoron.


Tha's not a likely option, in my opinion.

No, I'm saying that it's possible that GC's spread throughout society (and Congress) could set the mood, and a non-GC president could just go with the flow. It's possible.

Which brings me too this other thing:

On 2002-05-03 10:08, David '47 wrote:
This is 4T stuff, for sure. It points-out the disparity between the 4T-ready Congress and the 3T-happy President. The only thing missing is the <u>Battle Hymn of the Republic</u> playing quietly in the background.

firemind, you should definitely repost on the "Evidence ... 3T or 4T" thread.

Come to think of it, David is right here, it DOES sort of play into the Silents in power vs. Boomer champing-at-the-bit thing.

So, I will take David's advice.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/...ael/index.html

<font color=blue>
Congress passes pro-Israel resolutions

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A week after the White House asked Congress to avoid action that could "inflame" the situation in the Middle East, the Senate Thursday approved resolution with pro-Israel sentiments.

The vote was 94-2, with Sens. Fritz Hollings, R-South Carolina, and Robert Byrd, D.-West Virginia, voting against it.

Minutes later the House approved its version 352-21, with 29 representatives voting "present."

The White House said it would have preferred Congress not take up the resolutions at all, but spokesman Ari Fleischer said the timing is "much better" now than a week ago because of encouraging developments in Israel.

Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, a sponsor of the House bill, worked with White House officials as late as Thursday morning to finalize language that would satisfy both the White House's desire to protect its diplomatic efforts and DeLay's desire to hold Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat accountable for allowing terrorist attacks to continue against Israeli citizens...
</font>

On 2002-05-03 10:03, David '47 wrote:



You're describing a leaderless movement. That assumes the world is (or will be) based on an anarcho-syndicalist structure, if that isn't an oxymoron.


Tha's not a likely option, in my opinion.

Actually, movements do not need to have leaders. In mid-August of 1774, the citizens of Massachusetts spontaneously rose up and overthrew the British government. By mid September, all British in MA had been overthrown from their posts.

Political movements themselves are often based off of anarcho-syndicalist modes of organization. Anarcho-syndicalism seems to be largely a 4T era phenomenon. Normally, as the 4T begins, the youth begin building grass-roots organizations designed to "resist" the corrupt government. These organizations rapidly grow in size and in power, and begin to challenge the official government. This trend was very clear between 1931 and 1940. This can also be seen from about 1774 and on to about 1778. This trend is also very clear from about 1676 to somewhere in the the mid 1680s. All of these eras mark a period where these organizations suddenly group, and rapidly gain power.

Many of the organizations in the 4T will be leaderless, and will be run using anarcho-syndicalist methods.

"Normally, as the 4T begins, the youth begin building grass-roots organizations designed to "resist" the corrupt government. These organizations rapidly grow in size and in power, and begin to challenge the official government. This trend was very clear between 1931 and 1940."

Perhaps Mr. Reed could get a little more specific on what American youth "grass-roots organizations" he is refering to here, that began to "challenge the offical government"? Or is he speaking of another country, perhaps?

On 2002-05-03 10:59, Marc Lamb wrote:
"Normally, as the 4T begins, the youth begin building grass-roots organizations designed to "resist" the corrupt government. These organizations rapidly grow in size and in power, and begin to challenge the official government. This trend was very clear between 1931 and 1940."

Perhaps Mr. Reed could get a little more specific on what American youth "grass-roots organizations" he is refering to here, that began to "challenge the offical government"? Or is he speaking of another country, perhaps?

I can answer. People who care about the residents of Jenin. Just answering your question.

Pizza man, who eats Mao's little Red Book,says,
"I can answer. People who care about the residents of Jenin. Just answering your question."

What the heck happened in Jenin "between 1931 and 1940"?

Well, let's first mention this Fourth Turning and all the protests for Palestine in this nation's capitol.

Then let's mention the activism of two human rights groups in Israel. Both send food aid to the residents of Jenin and one of them features the contributions of children.

http://palestinechronicle.com/articl...20503120547157

I will tell you that this indicates Israel has entered a Fourth Turning because the media must censor the activities of its own citizens on behalf of Palestinians. Kindness can cross political boundaries. The spirit of Jesus is still alive in the Middle East and it won't die.

Michael Epstein

"Where are the Israeli Activists?"

Friday, May 03 2002 @ 12:05 PM GMT

Nimrod S. Kerrett, for PalestineChronicle.com

Many things have changed since the massive invasion of
Israeli forces to Palestinian towns last month. It appears
as if there's hardly any presence of Israeli peace activists
and Israeli humanitarian efforts in the occupied territories.
In an article published in the Palestine Chronicle, Brian
Wood asked: "Why can't they [Israeli peace activists]
bring bulldozers over and take them into Jenin Refugee
Camp?". This question made me realize that most of the
public is unaware of the problems Israeli peace
movements and humanitarian projects are facing these
days.

I set out to question some Israeli peace organizations on
this subject. I interviewed members of two groups that
send aid to Palestinians, "Ta'ayush"
http://taayush.tripod.com) and "Windows"
(http://win-peace.org). These are not the only peace
organizations that exist in Israel and send humanitarian
aid to Palestinians (e.g. at the Salem/Jalame march and
convoy - about a dozen organizations were involved), but
I hope this can give you a taste of what is being done,
what isn't (and why), and mainly why not many people
hear about these efforts.

Both organizations ("Ta'Ayush" and "Windows") have a
much wider agenda than mere humanitarian aid (although
this became a top priority issue since the invasion).
Ta'Ayush has a clear political agenda, and all their actions
try to expose the situation and their views about it to the
public (in Israel, Palestine and the rest of the world).
They can be seen at all peace demonstrations and
parades holding signs, and when they reach a checkpoint
with a convoy of supplies, this is always accompanied by
a protest march.

Sign of a 4T coming to Australia?

Going, going, gone: The cost of hands-off government

By Jennifer Hewett and Michael Millett
May 4 2002


You're scheduled to have a minor operation which has now been postponed indefinitely. Your spouse used to work for Ansett. The construction of the new house has been delayed because the builder's still trying to sort out insurance. Your older kid can't fit into the right university course because the demand is so high and the places so scarce. The younger kid's school camp has been cancelled because no-one wants to take on the legal liability for accidents. You'd take a break to get away from it all - if only you had any frequent flyer points left.

Aaaaargh! Whatever happened to life as we knew it? No wonder the Prime Minister, John Howard, is under constant pressure to DO something. But what exactly? And who pays?

It's as though the country is suddenly taking a very expensive lesson in market economics and wondering nervously what the social costs are. The typical Australian response has always been to ask the Government for a hand - or a handout - and there's been no shortage of angry demands of late.

But Howard and the Treasurer, Peter Costello, are proving reluctant partners in the great free-market bazaar. Sometimes they say yes, sometimes they say no. And often they just give a maybe until someone else turns up.

The executive director of the St James Ethics Centre, Dr Simon Longstaff, argues that while politicians are preaching the virtues of non-intervention (except when it suits), the public is actually moving in the other direction. "In times like this, when there are vast numbers of people who feel threatened and confused by the nature of change within society, also where they have no reason left to trust virtually any institution - formal or informal - there is a very strong mood for government intervention and regulation," he says.

"The feeling is that, somehow, government might make the world a safer, more stable place. Now everyone knows that it won't really work that way but, nonetheless, there is still that pressure from the population as a whole."

Indeed, in this new century the increasingly confident faith in a global market untrammelled by too much regulation has been badly shaken. The incoming Bush Administration made a virtue of its non-interventionist line. "The market is rational and government is dumb," is the way a top Republican summarised the new view of public administration.

Since then the extraordinary debacle at Enron has become the large-scale version of HIH in Australia, telling the public that the "free" market's rigged against ordinary people, especially if they believe the official statements and glossy documents and optimistic predictions. Even the Bush Administration decided it was worth spending billions of dollars to bail out its entire airline industry in the wake of September 11.

So what is the proper role of government when businesses go bad and threaten to drag their customers and whole industries and local economies down with them? It's not as though there's any discernible general rule evident. Why help Mitsubishi again but not Ansett, for example? Why pay out entitlements to the workers at a company where Howard's brother is a director but not help other companies when they get into trouble? The trouble is that ordinary people would soon get pretty sick of their taxes constantly going to try to fill in an unlimited number of business black holes. "Taxpayer subsidies to inefficient business need to cease immediately," an angry newspaper reader argued during the Ansett debate. "The sooner economic Darwinism becomes part of government policy, the sooner Australian businesses will prosper in their own right."

It's true that defining the terms of assistance for corporate welfare is open to interpretation, if not abuse. Socialising the losses of entrepreneurs is particularly dangerous. Sooner or later, people start talking about "moral hazard" - the idea that if people know they are likely to get bailed out of trouble anyway, they will only take otherwise unjustifiable risks. The precedent becomes a self-fulfilling principle. That's all very well, of course, until it happens to be you - or a whole lot of innocent individuals - caught in the vice. The market may work sooner or later but it's not a painless or predictable process.

After considerable dithering, for example, the Government has now committed itself to protecting some of those innocent bystanders crushed by the HIH collapse through no fault of their own - at an estimated cost of $640 million. Ray Williams and Rodney Adler and the boys could more than look after themselves. But the Government figured it couldn't simply leave every individual and small business on its own even if it could be argued that people looking for cheap insurance deals should accept the extra risk.

As the royal commission makes evident daily, however, any attempt to keep the business going and protect the shareholders and all policy holders would have been prohibitively expensive as well as futile, given the extent of the financial mismanagement and misjudgements. And a very incendiary precedent in an industry that desperately needed to reform and re-price itself.

As always, prevention is better than cure. The economic purists would argue that the primary government role should not extend beyond ensuring the right regulations are in place, the supervisory framework adequate and the market is competitive. Caveat emptor.

In the case of HIH, for example, the Government's main responsibility should have been to make sure its regulatory body had the authority and ability to properly supervise the company and ensure it had adequate reserves. It clearly failed that responsibility. But sending good money after bad - especially when it's ours - doesn't seem much of a response, either.

Likewise the doctors. The medical profession could scarcely believe it when the Government sent off its polite no-thanks letter to United Medical Protection saying it would not provide any more assistance. This immediately led to the liquidation of the fund, the doctors downing their instruments and a frantic rush by Canberra to cobble together some bandaid while something more permanent could be worked out.

Yet this was a problem that had been building for years. No-one - clearly not the doctors at UMP - faced up to the fact that they were not paying enough medical insurance to cope with the rising level of claims. Ironically, the NSW Government's attempt to help out by bringing in a new law last year to cap payouts only exacerbated the immediate problems by provoking a flurry of claims to try to beat the new laws. Even Howard's decision to give UMP $35 million a few months ago looks a rather naive waste. Now the Federal Government is understandably reluctant to offer open-ended financial responsibility on our behalf for any claims dating back for all those years when UMP was supposedly functioning. The fight ain't over.

Even Government MPs are upset over the policy flip-flops. "The current administration does not have a policy on intervention, except to do so when there is a political necessity," a senior backbencher fumed.

"There is no consistency of approach. It is driven solely by the Prime Minister's political demand of the day. It may be good politics, but it is not conducive to good government. In the end, it is the taxpayer who suffers."

For all the criticism over the adhocery and confusion in Canberra, however, Graham Matthews of Access Economics argues that an element of this is both inevitable and necessary when it comes to the hard questions about government's responsibility.

"It's very much a case of trying to come up with a set of rules that can apply to everyone but then having to take individual circumstances into account as well," he says.

"Even with the best of intentions and a sound regulatory environment, there are still going to be dramatic failures where the Government is called on to do something. And the starting point always has to be the moral hazard problem. If you bail out one insurance company, for example, others will write more risky business knowing the Government will step in to protect policy holders and policy holders think they can always get deals too good to be true."

But negotiating the balance of interests is never easy - particularly when there's rarely one reason for a collapse and it's even more rare to find a cheap solution.

Certainly, the reasons for the insurance debacle extend beyond any mistakes by any particular company or even by governments. The industry spent much of the past decade aggressively price-cutting, which consumers naturally didn't mind one bit. But the financial backing got harder and harder to sustain as those claims kept coming in. Add in the collapse of HIH and then the global insurance fallout from September 11 and the industry suddenly got much more nervous about risks. That's triggered the new debate about whether the past year signals the end of the fashion for ever diminishing government and rates of tax.

Sure, no-one is arguing much any more that government should own banks or airlines - although the majority don't want to sell off the rest of Telstra and we're not too sure about Medibank Private, either, thanks very much. During the 1980s, Australia also learnt the perils of politicians imagining themselves to be good businessmen. Think WA Inc and the financial disaster of the Cain Government in Victoria and the collapse of the State Bank in South Australia. Since then, the main competition has been aggressive squabbling between the states to lure business with a range of concessions and special deals whose economic effectiveness is usually highly dubious. One premier's corporate welfare is another's essential strategic public investment.

At the other end, bailing out companies that have failed is always going to be emotionally powerful politics but equally difficult economics. With Ansett, it meant weighing up the costs of towns without a decent airline service and the demise of all those other small businesses reliant on Ansett, as well as the Ansett employees who lost their jobs and many of their entitlements.

Solly Lew and Lindsay Fox discovered to their humiliation that saving Ansett was going to take a wide-open wallet with no guarantee it would work. As Costello said then: "You would have had to have put billions of dollars into this." And public money spent on that inevitably means less public money spent on anything else. Such as education.

What's fair? What's not? The community mood is definitely hankering for some rebalancing between individual responsibility, commercial profit and government protection. The outspoken Labor frontbencher Mark Latham says both sides of politics have to grapple with this. "The right talks about compassionate conservatism," he said this week. "Social democrats talk about a Third Way beyond markets and states."

But beware the drama of the moment. Government inaction can be better than Government action - even if it doesn't feel that way at the time.

Sign of 3 T

Head of government inquiry into 9/11 intelligence failure resigns.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...679apr30.story

Another sign of 3T: A skit on SNL last night ridiculing the news coverage of the WOT. (The further into 4T we get, the *less* likely that either the system or the people would tolerate ridicule of the efforts being made to solve the country's biggest perceived problems, IMHO.)

Another 3T sign?

Bubba Clinton is talking with NBC about getting his own talk show. This show will NOT be a political show, as that would be
a "conflict of interest" with his wife (now a senator, what were you guys in NY thinking anyway?)

What would they call that show?
"The Bubba Factor"? :razz:

On 2002-05-05 07:54, jds1958xg wrote:
Another sign of 3T: A skit on SNL last night ridiculing the news coverage of the WOT. (The further into 4T we get, the *less* likely that either the system or the people would tolerate ridicule of the efforts being made to solve the country's biggest perceived problems, IMHO.)

I won't disagree with you fundamentally that we may be in 3rd Turning mode.

But I don't think satires are prohibited at presidential efforts to battle problems if they are seen as ineffective or worse.

The term Hooverville comes to mind.