Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75

Originally Posted by Olaf Palme

Socially, I see little change since 9/11
My generation is still holding down jobs that can barely support them, hording together in mini "urban families" or settling down with girlfriends or spouses to make ends meet.

I don't think I'd agree here. In my extended circle of (late-wave Thirteener) friends, tattooed and pierced and oh-so-alternative, marriage is definitely on the upswing, as is the desire to raise a family. Five or six years ago, most of my friends were drifting aimlessly from job to job, mostly in the service sector, with some working their way through college. Nowadays, that education is paying off for some, and others have settled comfortably into a job with at least some security. Some of them, like myself, have entered the military, which is rapidly becoming a Thirteener institution.

My friends used to sit on street corners and in pizza parlors and talk about the day that we would run record labels, set up shows, or experiment with new technologies and techniques. Now one's releasing records, another is touring in across Asia, while another is busy moonlighting as a DJ and one man experimental post-techno show. Back in '94, I was one of the first kids on my block to get a musical project distributed on a compilation; nowadays, that achievement no longer stands out. Another friend of mine has started a software company that specializes in designing games for cell phones. (And he was recently interviewed for a trade magazine, much to my surprise.)

On a much more general level, my friends seem to be preparing for the future in ways I never expected, and on a scale that is surprising and, in some ways, encouraging. They have shown a definite entrepreneurial streak, and they're definitely becoming far more family oriented than they once were. While I wouldn't say that they've become more conservative, politically or culturally (though some have), there is something of a resurgence of traditionalism, and there is a definite tendency towards a kind of libertarianism, although most of them probably wouldn't use that term.

Chris aren't you 29 or so? Wouldn't it seem natural to expect 28, or 29 year-olds to invest more in the future, or to settle down and have families?
Isn't the average age for women to marry something like 26, and the average age for men, something like 28?
Personally I've changed in the past few years. I'm married and have a daughter. I've invested a lot more in my careers. Most of my friends (about 23-25 years old) are cohabitating.
But what are their jobs? They all seem to be employed through a temp agency. They have "Microserf" jobs where they sit around and check their e-mail all day long - or answer phones - and are definitely not getting paid for what they studied in college. Health insurance for us is a luxury, provided to those who can figure out how to get it, be it private or from the state. Nearly everybody needs a wealthy parent to sign that first lease because quality housing is so unattainable for young, educated people.
Personaly I see many of them going through this so-called "quarter life crisis" where they are out of school for a few years, working unsatisfying jobs that lead no place, and desperately looking for something to sustain them - economically and mentally. Some are becoming teachers (make that many) others are going to "law school."
We make dues with barely above poverty level wages, doing work that we are overqualified to do.
I will give you that "being traditional" is unquestioned by my friends. I don't see it so much as "traditional" it's just being comfortable.
At this point in the game, I would feel the odd man out, even at 24, being some kind of free floating spirit, because I would be crashing on the couches of lots of de facto married couple like some loser cousin.

But I am not sure if we are in a crisis stage. I;ve never lived through one - and the last turning I lived through I was very young.
I'm still waiting for a big change in hair styles. :lol:

Originally Posted by Olaf Palme

Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75

Originally Posted by Olaf Palme

Socially, I see little change since 9/11
My generation is still holding down jobs that can barely support them, hording together in mini "urban families" or settling down with girlfriends or spouses to make ends meet.

I don't think I'd agree here. In my extended circle of (late-wave Thirteener) friends, tattooed and pierced and oh-so-alternative, marriage is definitely on the upswing, as is the desire to raise a family. Five or six years ago, most of my friends were drifting aimlessly from job to job, mostly in the service sector, with some working their way through college. Nowadays, that education is paying off for some, and others have settled comfortably into a job with at least some security. Some of them, like myself, have entered the military, which is rapidly becoming a Thirteener institution.

My friends used to sit on street corners and in pizza parlors and talk about the day that we would run record labels, set up shows, or experiment with new technologies and techniques. Now one's releasing records, another is touring in across Asia, while another is busy moonlighting as a DJ and one man experimental post-techno show. Back in '94, I was one of the first kids on my block to get a musical project distributed on a compilation; nowadays, that achievement no longer stands out. Another friend of mine has started a software company that specializes in designing games for cell phones. (And he was recently interviewed for a trade magazine, much to my surprise.)

On a much more general level, my friends seem to be preparing for the future in ways I never expected, and on a scale that is surprising and, in some ways, encouraging. They have shown a definite entrepreneurial streak, and they're definitely becoming far more family oriented than they once were. While I wouldn't say that they've become more conservative, politically or culturally (though some have), there is something of a resurgence of traditionalism, and there is a definite tendency towards a kind of libertarianism, although most of them probably wouldn't use that term.

Chris aren't you 29 or so? Wouldn't it seem natural to expect 28, or 29 year-olds to invest more in the future, or to settle down and have families?
Isn't the average age for women to marry something like 26, and the average age for men, something like 28?
Personally I've changed in the past few years. I'm married and have a daughter. I've invested a lot more in my careers. Most of my friends (about 23-25 years old) are cohabitating.
But what are their jobs? They all seem to be employed through a temp agency. They have "Microserf" jobs where they sit around and check their e-mail all day long - or answer phones - and are definitely not getting paid for what they studied in college. Health insurance for us is a luxury, provided to those who can figure out how to get it, be it private or from the state. Nearly everybody needs a wealthy parent to sign that first lease because quality housing is so unattainable for young, educated people.
Personaly I see many of them going through this so-called "quarter life crisis" where they are out of school for a few years, working unsatisfying jobs that lead no place, and desperately looking for something to sustain them - economically and mentally. Some are becoming teachers (make that many) others are going to "law school."
We make dues with barely above poverty level wages, doing work that we are overqualified to do.
I will give you that "being traditional" is unquestioned by my friends. I don't see it so much as "traditional" it's just being comfortable.
At this point in the game, I would feel the odd man out, even at 24, being some kind of free floating spirit, because I would be crashing on the couches of lots of de facto married couple like some loser cousin.

But I am not sure if we are in a crisis stage. I;ve never lived through one - and the last turning I lived through I was very young.
I'm still waiting for a big change in hair styles. :lol:

I'm with Olaf Palme (aka Justin the Anglophobe :wink: ) on this one.

Yes, the generations are moving along the diagonal.

--GI's hold 1/65th of their peak socio-political power and are effectively gone.

--The Silent are mostly retired from public life and are now beginning to die off in droves.

--Boomers are entering their peak of socio-political power, and their early Aquarian wave is preparing for it's elder role and thus increasing potential for "last-act urgency".

--Xer's are just starting to attain some serious political power within major institutions and their Atari/Slacker first wave is approaching the point of Nomad midlife crisis, increasing the potential for "circle the wagons".

--Millennials are now likely finished being born, are slowly but definitively reinterpreting society's impression of the Youth bracket for the better, and their first Cabbage Patch wave is beginning to come of age. As such they are starting to bring their communitarian proclivities into the adult world.

We can recognize all of this, yet realize that a new mood has not yet crystalized. "It hasn't?!?", you may say indignantly, "What of the Patriot Act, the War on Terror, and the Terror Warning codes?" I believe there is a strong argument to be made that these are not inherently 4T reactions.

Take a good, hard look at America 1917-1920. We had World War One, and with it massive (if temporary) growth in the size and scope of government. We had Attorney General Mitchell (Ashcroft on Steroids) Palmer wildly rounding up foreigners -- and in some cases a de facto suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus for citizens. We had anarchist terrorist bombings (some on Wall Street in Southern Manhattan, no less) and a huge national panic about terrorist cells around the country.

This all had some 4T components, but the saeculum was not ready for a 4T and all of this was reabsorbed into a 3T mood almost like antibodies breaking down an infection. It may have had our society become immigrant-averse somewhat early in the cycle, but that's about it.

I see the Phony Fourth (9/11 to today) as just such a type of reaction. However, like the period above, such a hypersensitive 3T state cannot last. Either a more normal 3T resumes, or something else. By the 1920 elections the public was weary of crisis-talk and craved a return to "normalcy", and got it -- actually they got a "jazzed up" version of "normal".

The Phony Fourth must end. Perhaps the current growing dissatisfaction with Bush is an indication of the public feeling this. All 4T talk with 3T action. The difference this time is that our facsimile of the WWI/Anarchist Scare is occuring much later in the cycle when a 3T is much more mature. This time when the time comes for the mini-mood to end, it very likely NOT to revert to a "jazzed up" 3T, but go into full-blown 4T.

While we may talk of "bringing democracy to the Middle East" and a global "War on Terror", we are not instituting a draft, we are not implementing emergency surtaxes to support the military, and we are not engaging in anything that even closely resembles "total war".

Meanwhile while we watch Nip & Tuck and oogle over Britney Spears' latest marital escapades, we are consuming our seed corn like there is no tomorrow and building up the techno-manufacturing base of a likely 4T enemy (China) in the process. Our debt loads (of all varieties) are titanic and ever-growing.

No, the party continues. I read "Toward the Fourth Turning" on page 251 of The Fourth Turning and nod my head:

"The mood of the early Oh-Ohs will be much like today [1997], except a lot more jittery. These will be the years of the reality check . . . "

Indeed they are.

No matter what the outcome is, this election will be the dividing line--it's one of the five most serious elections in American history. That's not to say that the winner will successfully transofrm America according to his lights, but we will be in real crisis no matter who wins. IN addition, I think we will see a dramatic increase in turnout.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is one index of the change to 4T.


David K '47

Alan Wolfe is a sensible sociologist and a nice guy--I believe he's a late-wave Silent. The following review of current polemical political books is very interesting, not least because, were Prof. Wolfe to spend some time with the works of Strauss and Howe, he would be able to understand the moment through which we are passing much better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/11/bo.../11WOLFEL.html

Crises, Prof. Wolfe, create establishments.

David K '47

and I tend to agree with Mr. Strauss; that we're more in a 3rd turning, and not a 4th turning. The response to the "War on Terror" seems to be much more fragmented and not as unified as a 4th turning would be, (with the exception of course of the Civil War anamoly.

Chris makes a point neatly that I have tried to make for years. Bravo!

Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

I'm with Olaf Palme (aka Justin the Anglophobe :wink: ) on this one.

Yes, the generations are moving along the diagonal.

--GI's hold 1/65th of their peak socio-political power and are effectively gone.

--The Silent are mostly retired from public life and are now beginning to die off in droves.

--Boomers are entering their peak of socio-political power, and their early Aquarian wave is preparing for it's elder role and thus increasing potential for "last-act urgency".

--Xer's are just starting to attain some serious political power within major institutions and their Atari/Slacker first wave is approaching the point of Nomad midlife crisis, increasing the potential for "circle the wagons".

--Millennials are now likely finished being born, are slowly but definitively reinterpreting society's impression of the Youth bracket for the better, and their first Cabbage Patch wave is beginning to come of age. As such they are starting to bring their communitarian proclivities into the adult world.

We can recognize all of this, yet realize that a new mood has not yet crystalized. "It hasn't?!?", you may say indignantly, "What of the Patriot Act, the War on Terror, and the Terror Warning codes?" I believe there is a strong argument to be made that these are not inherently 4T reactions.

Take a good, hard look at America 1917-1920. We had World War One, and with it massive (if temporary) growth in the size and scope of government. We had Attorney General Mitchell (Ashcroft on Steroids) Palmer wildly rounding up foreigners -- and in some cases a de facto suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus for citizens. We had anarchist terrorist bombings (some on Wall Street in Southern Manhattan, no less) and a huge national panic about terrorist cells around the country.

This all had some 4T components, but the saeculum was not ready for a 4T and all of this was reabsorbed into a 3T mood almost like antibodies breaking down an infection. It may have had our society become immigrant-averse somewhat early in the cycle, but that's about it.

I see the Phony Fourth (9/11 to today) as just such a type of reaction. However, like the period above, such a hypersensitive 3T state cannot last. Either a more normal 3T resumes, or something else. By the 1920 elections the public was weary of crisis-talk and craved a return to "normalcy", and got it -- actually they got a "jazzed up" version of "normal".

The Phony Fourth must end. Perhaps the current growing dissatisfaction with Bush is an indication of the public feeling this. All 4T talk with 3T action. The difference this time is that our facsimile of the WWI/Anarchist Scare is occuring much later in the cycle when a 3T is much more mature. This time when the time comes for the mini-mood to end, it very likely NOT to revert to a "jazzed up" 3T, but go into full-blown 4T.

The response to the last Crisis, defined by Strauss and Howe as a combination of the Depression and World War II, wasn't particularly dramatic or rapid, and it certainly wasn't overwhelmingly unified--at least not until the "Day That Will Live In Infamy".

If Strauss and Howe are right, and the Depression was the first stage of the Crisis, then this era was not one of immediate lockstep unity, but instead was a period of considerable dissent and disagreement. Huey P. Long had his own plans for the nation, and he announced his intention to seek the Presidency not long before he was assassinated. The notorious Father Coughlin sniped at FDR from the airwaves, and proposed an alternative to the New Deal that won some support, though this support never materialized politically. Then there was Francis E. Townsend, who won massive (and surprising) support for his "Old Age Revolving Pension Plan"--support that forced Roosevelt to counter with his own Social Security plan.

A lot of New Deal legislation was passed during the first four months of Roosevelt's first term (the "Hundred Days"), and in the following years the Supreme Court and the Congress whittled away at the reforms until there was little left. For every lasting reform, a number of programs simply vanished.

The mood we associate with the Fourth Turning crystallized slowly and fitfully. FDR's political opponents tied his hands between 1935 and 1937 with a series of laws intended to insure that the United States remained neutral. In 1940, the President and his political allies responded to the fall of France with a "peacetime" conscription bill, which passed in the House by a narrow margin: just one vote. The America First Committee agitated. Isolationists on the American Old Right fought a rearguard action against American involvement in the War, as did those who admired the apparent efficiency and superiority of Fascism. For the short time that the Hitler-Stalin Non-Aggression Pact held, American Communists stoked anti-war sentiment--flipping positions as soon as the Nazis broke the treaty.

It was Pearl Harbor that ultimately unified the nation--over a decade after the beginning of the Turning!

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

While we may talk of "bringing democracy to the Middle East" and a global "War on Terror", we are not instituting a draft, we are not implementing emergency surtaxes to support the military, and we are not engaging in anything that even closely resembles "total war".

No, but a Fourth Turning is not a war, though the Crisis that catalyzes a Fourth Turning may be. More than anything else, a Turning represents a mood that descends upon a society, transforming its attitudes, assumptions, and institutions in various ways--some subtle, and some far more dramatic.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Meanwhile while we watch Nip & Tuck and oogle over Britney Spears' latest marital escapades, we are consuming our seed corn like there is no tomorrow and building up the techno-manufacturing base of a likely 4T enemy (China) in the process. Our debt loads (of all varieties) are titanic and ever-growing.

And the GIs watched frenetic Disney, Warner Brothers, and Fleischer cartoons at their movie theaters. They oohed and aahed to vapid musicals and listened to vapid Swing and Big Band tunes. They read escapist science-fiction and funny animal comic strips in their newspapers. (And Little Orphan Annie, too!) And let's not forget the escapist fair that the nation tuned into on the radio night after night.

If Strauss and Howe are correct in presenting the Depression and the War as one long Crisis, then we have to acknowledge that the shift to a Fourth Turning Mood was gradual and uneven. We could be in the earliest phase of a Fourth Turning and simply not recognize it just yet.

(I'll try to address your comments about the Palmer Raids and a return to "normalcy" when I get more time.)

Chris, I didn't say that a 4T society had to be unified in it's response. It just had to have massively different responses from what the 3T offerred. Society's reaction to the 1929 crash was entirely different from the Panic of 1907 or the very acute Depression of 1920. Society just unraveled at the seams over the course of 1930-33, at least ecomonically. And the type of escapism and the crude emphasis on sex quickly changed. I don't see how one could call the period from 1929-1933 a slow and fitful change. It looks pretty astounding, and terrible, from where I'm sitting.

I have called this 3T-to-4T transition a "cascade". Some have pointed out that a cascade may not be necessary as a keynote to a 4T. Though I technically agree, it seems that history tells us that it is more likely than not that a cascading type reaction starts off Crisis era.

I am just saying that these past few years come across to me as more an intense 3T reaction than a true 4T cascade opener.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Chris, I didn't say that a 4T society had to be unified in it's response. It just had to have massively different responses from what the 3T offerred. Society's reaction to the 1929 crash was entirely different from the Panic of 1907 or the very acute Depression of 1920.

This is not correct. Society's response to the onset of the Depression was not that dissimilar to the response to earlier financial/economic crises. For example, the 1932 bonus marchers were turned away with nothing as was Coxey's army in 1894.

The lack of an effective response was why there was a Depression. Had society taken the action we have today when faced with the same problem, the Crisis would not have happened. The "crash" we faced in 2000-2002 was potentially more severe as what we faced in 1929. But we got through it with a mild recession.

The whole point of a 4T is that effective action is NOT taken, we drift into the abyss. The shit is allowed to hit the fan. 4Ts are passive things, its something that happens to you, you know, shit happens.

The problem last time was our inability, or more properly our lack of will, to act as a hegemon and to moderate our economic cycles, and as a result of this the Depression and WW II happened. The 4T before that it was our inability or unwillingness to deal with "the elephant in the room", slavery. In fact, Congress passed gag orders to stop any mention of this issue in session. In the 4T before that it was the inability of the British crown to see the untitled American elite as citizens rather than subjects. In the 4T before that it again the English crown who failed to see that the he was the Head of State, not its Owner.

Today we face new problems. Our economy is overly dependent on oil that increasingly is sourced from poor nations. The very existence of this valuable resource creates the potential for unearned riches for well-connected inhabitants of these poor countries. This is a recipe for corruption and political instability. Price should fluctuate wildly and shortages arise all the time. Were we to leave it to the market, oil prices would be much higher to pay for market arbitrage by speculators, and oil would not appear to be as attactive an energy resource compared to alternates as it does.

But we don't. Instead we seek a political solution to oil price fluctuatings, where we back factions that can maintain political stability, thus reducing the need for arbitrage and driving down the price of oil. Now this is something great powers have done forever--but now its a problem. It's just like ruling a nation like an owner was "what was done" until the Glorious Revolution changed that. And dealing with commoners as subjects was always the way it was done, until the American Revolution changed that. Blacks were property, not people, until the Civil War changed that. The economy and international politics were always something Americans left to run on their own, until the Depression & WW II changed that.

Great nations have always used political power to achieve economic ends in the international arena. This crisis seems poised to change that. Artifically cheap oil achieved through political means encourages us to remain overly dependent on it rather than developing alternatives. And the political means we use to do this have resulting in a new phenomenon: al Qaeda-style terrorsm. The result is a nasty mess which is only going to get worse. Especially when our response so far has been more of the same.

This is only one poential issue around which a 4T can revolve. I can think of several others. One is environmental (suppose we get a global warming scare in the next decade, I suppose it could happen). Another is financial, how are we going to finance health care and retirement for a vast population of elderly Boomers who vote.? This has the making a a first rank political crisis and it is due to hit next decade--i.e. during this crisis.

I can imagine waves of shit hitting the fan in sequence. The first splatter landed on Americans directly affected by 911.

Does it really feel the same as the late 1990's? Back in 2000 when I came to this site, discussions were cordial and more related to generations and history. Today the mood is highly partisan and topics usually politically charged. Back then the national scandals were about sex, today it is about war & peace. Back then it was fashionable not to care about politics. Today feelings run much higher.

Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75

If Strauss and Howe are correct in presenting the Depression and the War as one long Crisis,

I agree with everything you posted, but I do feel a need to point out that for America, the last 4T wasn't long, it was unusually short. If S&H are right (and I think they are), America's last 4T ran from 1929 to 1945 or maybe 1946, 16-17 years.

I think it went on rather longer elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Does it really feel the same as the late 1990's?

Increasingly, as we move past 911, yes, it does. Not entirely, of course. We're into the 'jittery' phase of a dying 3T.

Back in 2000 when I came to this site, discussions were cordial and more related to generations and history. Today the mood is highly partisan and topics usually politically charged. Back then the national scandals were about sex, today it is about war & peace. Back then it was fashionable not to care about politics. Today feelings run much higher.

Yeah, but it's primarily confined to the 'political caste' and those like us who follow current events closely. Huge swaths of the population are still barely paying attention, and are showing signs of a strong desire to go back to sleep. It's still nearly impossible to actually do anything on any scale larger than the individual, and what little does get done still tends to end up mired in Silent-style process.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Yeah, but it's primarily confined to the 'political caste' and those like us who follow current events closely. Huge swaths of the population are still barely paying attention, and are showing signs of a strong desire to go back to sleep. It's still nearly impossible to actually do anything on any scale larger than the individual, and what little does get done still tends to end up mired in Silent-style process.

But many of the same people were then as now. The behavior change occurred in them too. Yes there are new participants who came since E2K or 911 to argue politics rather than discuss history & turnings, but why did they come when they did and if it's settled back to 3T why are they still here?

The answer is it hasn't settled down and the game is still afoot.

Rather than "HopefulCynic68", these days, you strike me as "WishfulThinking68."

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Does it really feel the same as the late 1990's?

Increasingly, as we move past 911, yes, it does. Not entirely, of course. We're into the 'jittery' phase of a dying 3T.

Back in 2000 when I came to this site, discussions were cordial and more related to generations and history. Today the mood is highly partisan and topics usually politically charged. Back then the national scandals were about sex, today it is about war & peace. Back then it was fashionable not to care about politics. Today feelings run much higher.

Yeah, but it's primarily confined to the 'political caste' and those like us who follow current events closely. Huge swaths of the population are still barely paying attention, and are showing signs of a strong desire to go back to sleep. It's still nearly impossible to actually do anything on any scale larger than the individual, and what little does get done still tends to end up mired in Silent-style process.

I think this was much more true in earlier saecula. Many people in past crises just wanted to live their own lives until events happened right in front of their face (for instance, a close family member or friend losing their job during the Depression, a close family member or friend being drafted during the Civil War or fighting during the Revolution or troops raiding your pantry during either war).

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

I agree with everything you posted, but I do feel a need to point out that for America, the last 4T wasn't long, it was unusually short. If S&H are right (and I think they are), America's last 4T ran from 1929 to 1945 or maybe 1946, 16-17 years.

I think it went on rather longer elsewhere.

It did go longer in Australia from about 1930-1950; I think the last 4T in America ran so short, because it started late. If the 4T had started in 1926 it would have finished around 1946. I think it had to do with the nature of the Missionary generation, a prophet generation raised by Nomads instead of Heroes.

Brian Rush once dubbed them watercolour prophets, instead of oil like the Boomers are and Transcendentals were.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Chris, I didn't say that a 4T society had to be unified in it's response. It just had to have massively different responses from what the 3T offerred. Society's reaction to the 1929 crash was entirely different from the Panic of 1907 or the very acute Depression of 1920.

This is not correct. Society's response to the onset of the Depression was not that dissimilar to the response to earlier financial/economic crises. For example, the 1932 bonus marchers were turned away with nothing as was Coxey's army in 1894.

The lack of an effective response was why there was a Depression. Had society taken the action we have today when faced with the same problem, the Crisis would not have happened. The "crash" we faced in 2000-2002 was potentially more severe as what we faced in 1929. But we got through it with a mild recession.

The whole point of a 4T is that effective action is NOT taken, we drift into the abyss. The shit is allowed to hit the fan. 4Ts are passive things, its something that happens to you, you know, shit happens.

The problem last time was our inability, or more properly our lack of will, to act as a hegemon and to moderate our economic cycles, and as a result of this the Depression and WW II happened. The 4T before that it was our inability or unwillingness to deal with "the elephant in the room", slavery. In fact, Congress passed gag orders to stop any mention of this issue in session. In the 4T before that it was the inability of the British crown to see the untitled American elite as citizens rather than subjects. In the 4T before that it again the English crown who failed to see that the he was the Head of State, not its Owner.

Today we face new problems. Our economy is overly dependent on oil that increasingly is sourced from poor nations. The very existence of this valuable resource creates the potential for unearned riches for well-connected inhabitants of these poor countries. This is a recipe for corruption and political instability. Price should fluctuate wildly and shortages arise all the time. Were we to leave it to the market, oil prices would be much higher to pay for market arbitrage by speculators, and oil would not appear to be as attactive an energy resource compared to alternates as it does.

But we don't. Instead we seek a political solution to oil price fluctuatings, where we back factions that can maintain political stability, thus reducing the need for arbitrage and driving down the price of oil. Now this is something great powers have done forever--but now its a problem. It's just like ruling a nation like an owner was "what was done" until the Glorious Revolution changed that. And dealing with commoners as subjects was always the way it was done, until the American Revolution changed that. Blacks were property, not people, until the Civil War changed that. The economy and international politics were always something Americans left to run on their own, until the Depression & WW II changed that.

Great nations have always used political power to achieve economic ends in the international arena. This crisis seems poised to change that. Artifically cheap oil achieved through political means encourages us to remain overly dependent on it rather than developing alternatives. And the political means we use to do this have resulting in a new phenomenon: al Qaeda-style terrorsm. The result is a nasty mess which is only going to get worse. Especially when our response so far has been more of the same.

This is only one poential issue around which a 4T can revolve. I can think of several others. One is environmental (suppose we get a global warming scare in the next decade, I suppose it could happen). Another is financial, how are we going to finance health care and retirement for a vast population of elderly Boomers who vote.? This has the making a a first rank political crisis and it is due to hit next decade--i.e. during this crisis.

I can imagine waves of shit hitting the fan in sequence. The first splatter landed on Americans directly affected by 911.

Does it really feel the same as the late 1990's? Back in 2000 when I came to this site, discussions were cordial and more related to generations and history. Today the mood is highly partisan and topics usually politically charged. Back then the national scandals were about sex, today it is about war & peace. Back then it was fashionable not to care about politics. Today feelings run much higher.

I like your analysis of each 4T. And I submit that you know more about economics than I ever will.

However, it is my layman's feeling that even if the Fed had pumped zillions of dollars into the economy, we would have had a contraction (in real terms) anyway. The Missionaries were going GC on us, and the Lost were battening down the hatches. All a loose money supply policy would have done is wipe out good credit with the bad as the real contraction raged on, similar to Germany in the '20's.

And the combined Missionary/Lost/GI mindset led to idiocy like Smoot-Hawley. That surely didn't help matters either.

I think that if 9/11 had triggered a 4T mood, or another terrorist attack of that magnitude had followed shortly thereafter, the overconsumption splurge of the 3T would've ended no matter what Greenspan wanted. And it's going to end. It is unsustainable.

My two cents.

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

However, it is my layman's feeling that even if the Fed had pumped zillions of dollars into the economy, we would have had a contraction (in real terms) anyway. The Missionaries were going GC on us, and the Lost were battening down the hatches.

Sure we would have had a depression, like we did in 1920-21. But the Fed hiked rates in 1931. Had we dealt with the Credit Anstalt crisis like we did with Mexico, things may well have gone differently.

And the combined Missionary/Lost/GI mindset....

Well yes, this explains why effective action wrt to the problem of that time wasn't taken. Similarly, the combined Silent/Boomer/Xer mindset is ensuring that effective action is not being taken now.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/


EXCUSE ME!?!? We did not even do this in previous 4Ts!

This might in itself trigger a 4T cascade, in the form of domestic conflict.

The QuickPoll on CNN had 81% against the idea of ever postponing elections. That's simply not what we're about. I would be very wary of this Administration trying to postpone what could well be a close election.

from fahrenheit 911:

NARRATOR: Fear works?

REP. JIM MCDERMOTT: Fear does work, yes. You could make people do anything if they're afraid.

NARRATOR: And how do you make them afraid?

REP. JIM MCDERMOTT: Well you make them afraid by creating an aura of endless threat. They played us like an organ. They raised the le-, the orange and up to red and then they dropped it back to orange. I mean, they, they give these mixed messages which were crazy making.

PRESIDENT BUSH: The world has changed after September the 11th. It's changed because we're no longer safe. / Fly and enjoy America's great, uh, destination spots.

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: We've entered what may very well prove to be the most dangerous security environment the world's known.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Take your families and enjoy life.

VP CHENEY: Terrorists are doing everything they can to gain even deadlier means of striking us.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Get down to Disney World in Florida.

REP. JIM MCDERMOTT: It's like training a dog; ya tell him to sit down or ya tell him to roll over at the same time, the dog doesn't know what to do. Well the American people are being treated like that. It was really very very skillfully and, and ugly in what they did.

PRESIDENT BUSH: We must stop the terror. I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive. (President driving a golf ball)

REP. JIM MCDERMOTT: They will continue, in my view, as long as this administration's in charge. Every once in a while still leading everybody to be afraid, just in case you forgot. It's not gonna go down to green or blue. It's never gonna get there. There clearly is no way that anyone can live constantly on edge like that.

Originally Posted by John Taber

The QuickPoll on CNN had 81% against the idea of ever postponing elections. That's simply not what we're about. I would be very wary of this Administration trying to postpone what could well be a close election.

Lawdy. Even Lincoln, with far better excuse, didn't do that.

The scary thing is, poll results might not matter if the Shrub can find a way to do it legally. If he think's he's going to lose anyway, what does he care if it ticks people off?

I really, really don't like this.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Does it really feel the same as the late 1990's? Back in 2000 when I came to this site, discussions were cordial and more related to generations and history. Today the mood is highly partisan and topics usually politically charged. Back then the national scandals were about sex, today it is about war & peace. Back then it was fashionable not to care about politics. Today feelings run much higher.

True, but it's not the only change I have noticed in my lifetime.
Obviously the first big changeover was from "Good Times" to "Miami Vice" - where the happy go lucky early 80s finally burned out and gave way to the logic of greed is good. Awakening era activists committed suicide (Abbie Hoffman) tried to turnover a new leaf (Jerry Rubin) tried to go straight (Tom Hayden) or were murdered (Huey Newton). Our new heroes were rich, and possibly being investigated by the IRS. There was "The Donald" and Michael Milken...
Of course I didn't know that - I just knew that somehow between 1983 and 1986, our rolemodels went from Jack Tripper to Sonny Crocket. Enuf said.

However, somewhere around 1991 we turned a new corner. The big greed bubble burst, and the recession turned everything sour. I recall PC wars, Clinton's election - out with the Reagan-Bush years, the Soviet Union, the Berlin Wall, the careers of most heavy metal rock groups...It was pretty amazing. It was greeted by smirking cynics and commercials saying "Welcome to the '90s" where everything is just that much more pretentious, and that much cooler, and you have to get rid of those casettes and LPs for once and for all and get down with the new technology.

Finally, after Kurt blew his brains out (1994) Pearl Jam battled Ticketmaster (1996) and many other Gen X heroes died from heroin overdoses or AIDS - life took another turn. The poppy late 90s - where college grads were getting paid tons to check their e-mails...
One has to wonder at what point we draw those turning lines, when it is readily apparent that things change more frequently than every twenty years..

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by John Taber

The QuickPoll on CNN had 81% against the idea of ever postponing elections. That's simply not what we're about. I would be very wary of this Administration trying to postpone what could well be a close election.

Lawdy. Even Lincoln, with far better excuse, didn't do that.

The scary thing is, poll results might not matter if the Shrub can find a way to do it legally. If he think's he's going to lose anyway, what does he care if it ticks people off?

I really, really don't like this.

Nor do I. About three months ago, a pessimistic coworker of mine suggested that W might stage a coup if it appeared he might lose. I told him he was off his rocker...George Washington didn't accept that offer of kingship, Lincoln was prepared to leave the White House in Summer 1864 when his defeat seemed all but certain, and even paranoid Richard Nixon stopped short of actually trying to fix the '72 Election. No President has ever attempted a coup in the History of this country....it ain't gonna happen.

I hope I don't have to eat my words.

So do I, Kevin. Washington was nothing if not honorable, Lincoln though shifty had more belief in democracy than that, and Nixon for all his flaws did show a measure of statesmanlike responsibility on many occasions, including that one.

I have no such confidence about the character of Dubyah. My only hope now is that the system is designed well enough to forestall a coup attempt.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre..._delayed.shtml