Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Andy '85

I'm seriously having difficulties trying to wrap my head around this "scandal" in the making. Reading the Flocco...

Wrap harder. Like the Gibby-guy said, "If he's even one-tenth right about what he's saying, we're screwed."

Get it? 8)

Don't you have a CIA agent to out? Or an insurgency to feed? Or habeas corpus to deny to American citizens? Or prisoners to torture? Or Arab oil buddies to keep happy? Or other corporate buddies to help who are happy to plunder American manufacturing and sell it to the Chinese?

Get it? 8)

I'm sure your FDR-lovin' up-line would have been proud. :wink:

Originally Posted by The Gibby-guy

... Or other corporate buddies to help who are happy to plunder American manufacturing and sell it to the Chinese?

Get it? 8)

... Or other corporate buddies to help the Democrats win an election, who are happy to plunder American nuclear missile technology and sell it to the Chinese?

Get it? Very un 8)

p.s. It was Newt's fault, the Democrats had to do it.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Like you said, this Flocco guy is either scooping the story of the century or he's finished.

This grand jury is going to bring charges concerning the legitimacy of the 2000 election? :shock: :shock:

Sorry, I find that very hard to believe.

It has always been obvious to me that the 2000 election was illegitimate. It is the alleged fact that a grand jury would even be able to bring charges that I find hard to believe. It's like that CAFTA vote last week. First thing in the morning, I heard over the radio the "assurance" that Democrats had the votes to defeat it. I couldn't help but laugh uproariously. Then that evening, I heard the same "certain" claim on the radio that Democrats had the votes to defeat the thing. That produced another round of riotous laughter on my part. Of course, the next day, CAFTA passed without difficulty, as should have been obvious would happen to anyone who has been remotely awake over the past 5 years or so.

There is a far greater degree of control over events than "society" has conditioned us to believe is remotely possible. The last six years in particular have rendered this obvious to all who have eyes to see and ears to hear, and who are not in denial. And it is encouraging to encounter people daily, from all walks of life, who now concede the obvious, that "society" has reinforced a false paradigm which so limits the realm of legitimate speculation as to generally prevent people from ever arriving at the deeper truths. To the surprisingly large and ever increasing number who now have eyes to see, ears to hear, and who are not in denial, it is obvious that the Bush people should be brought up on most or all of those charges. But it is equally obvious that it will never happen. That is why Flocco's "scoop" here is so befuddling. It obviously should happen, but it is impossible that it ever will happen. In the meantime, it provides great entertainment.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

... Or other corporate buddies to help who are happy to plunder American manufacturing and sell it to the Chinese?

Get it? 8)

... Or other corporate buddies to help the Democrats win an election, who are happy to plunder American nuclear missile technology and sell it to the Chinese?

Get it? Very un 8)

Indeed. Very uncool. And I condemn it now and did at the time.

But does that make it all right to:

Out CIA agents? Create terrorists in Iraq? Withhold habeas corpus from American citizens? Torture prisoners? Cozy up to Arab oil? Plunder American manufacturing to benefit the Chinese?

And while we're at it . . . Does that make it okay to allow Chinese spies to plunder our nuclear secrets right under our noses, and give Al Qaeda and opportunity to slip any number of agents in with Bush's "guest workers"? Does it make it okay to the rich hoard wealth at the expense of social stability? Is that really "conservative"?

Right now, the Bushies you so admire are a greater danger to this country than the liberal Democrats. But what do you care? You don't give a rat's @ss about America, only the Republican Party.

Bloody well right, chap, bloody well right. 8)

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Like you said, this Flocco guy is either scooping the story of the century or he's finished.

This grand jury is going to bring charges concerning the legitimacy of the 2000 election? :shock: :shock:

Sorry, I find that very hard to believe.

It has always been obvious to me that the 2000 election was illegitimate. It is the alleged fact that a grand jury would even be able to bring charges that I find hard to believe. It's like that CAFTA vote last week. First thing in the morning, I heard over the radio the "assurance" that Democrats had the votes to defeat it. I couldn't help but laugh uproariously. Then that evening, I heard the same "certain" claim on the radio that Democrats had the votes to defeat the thing. That produced another round of riotous laughter on my part. Of course, the next day, CAFTA passed without difficulty, as should have been obvious would happen to anyone who has been remotely awake over the past 5 years or so.

There is a far greater degree of control over events than "society" has conditioned us to believe is remotely possible. The last six years in particular have rendered this obvious to all who have eyes to see and ears to hear, and who are not in denial. And it is encouraging to encounter people daily, from all walks of life, who now concede the obvious, that "society" has reinforced a false paradigm which so limits the realm of legitimate speculation as to generally prevent people from ever arriving at the deeper truths. To the surprisingly large and ever increasing number who now have eyes to see, ears to hear, and who are not in denial, it is obvious that the Bush people should be brought up on most or all of those charges. But it is equally obvious that it will never happen. That is why Flocco's "scoop" here is so befuddling. It obviously should happen, but it is impossible that it ever will happen. In the meantime, it provides great entertainment.

Perhaps, the question of the moment is by how much the story is being read, commented on, and distributed through the blogosphere. And is it making podcasts? Let's say that people ARE able to confirm that Flocco is speaking the truth? Will it become popular and widespread enough on the Internet that the mainstream media begins to take note? And

Originally Posted by Andy '85

Now if I want disturbing news, this is what I'd be looking at.

Never mind young man. Let's just move along folks.

Mr. Rumsfeld just "heard" about this. The 9-11 Commission says no one told them such a thing. Nothing to "see" here.

Meanwhile, weapons from the Medes have shown up in Mesopotamia or so says the SecDef. It all depends on what "weapons" means; it could have been toenail clippers carried by pilgrims to Najaf or Karbala or something quite a bit more nasty.

Originally Posted by BBC

He(our poet) said the arms were "clearly" Iranian but refused to describe them or say how many had been identified.

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Shemsu Heru

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Like you said, this Flocco guy is either scooping the story of the century or he's finished.

This grand jury is going to bring charges concerning the legitimacy of the 2000 election? :shock: :shock:

Sorry, I find that very hard to believe.

It has always been obvious to me that the 2000 election was illegitimate. It is the alleged fact that a grand jury would even be able to bring charges that I find hard to believe. It's like that CAFTA vote last week. First thing in the morning, I heard over the radio the "assurance" that Democrats had the votes to defeat it. I couldn't help but laugh uproariously. Then that evening, I heard the same "certain" claim on the radio that Democrats had the votes to defeat the thing. That produced another round of riotous laughter on my part. Of course, the next day, CAFTA passed without difficulty, as should have been obvious would happen to anyone who has been remotely awake over the past 5 years or so.

There is a far greater degree of control over events than "society" has conditioned us to believe is remotely possible. The last six years in particular have rendered this obvious to all who have eyes to see and ears to hear, and who are not in denial. And it is encouraging to encounter people daily, from all walks of life, who now concede the obvious, that "society" has reinforced a false paradigm which so limits the realm of legitimate speculation as to generally prevent people from ever arriving at the deeper truths. To the surprisingly large and ever increasing number who now have eyes to see, ears to hear, and who are not in denial, it is obvious that the Bush people should be brought up on most or all of those charges. But it is equally obvious that it will never happen. That is why Flocco's "scoop" here is so befuddling. It obviously should happen, but it is impossible that it ever will happen. In the meantime, it provides great entertainment.

Perhaps, the question of the moment is by how much the story is being read, commented on, and distributed through the blogosphere. And is it making podcasts? Let's say that people ARE able to confirm that Flocco is speaking the truth? Will it become popular and widespread enough on the Internet that the mainstream media begins to take note? And

If the grand jury truly did hand down indictments...and that is a VERY big if...on the basis of what we have seen in just the last few years, I see no reason to believe that the establishment media would ever have to acknowledge it. If they were somehow forced to acknowledge it, they would sucessfully distort it into insignificance as a form of damage control. Just look at the recent doings with Karl Rove. Wilson told us way back when that it was Rove who outed his wife. Then the establishment media blew in all kinds of smoke to deflect all attention away from Rove. Then, after all this time, we learn that Rove of course did out Wilson's wife. Duh!!!! But as soon as we learn this, the establishment media (what I, the Reaganite, always regarded as the "liberal" media...pshaw!) immediately went all out to say, "Well, Rove never said her name," and, "Well, Rove never actually broke the law," etc., etc. All these painful contortions on the part of the establishment media to blow that smoke and protect a vile, little unrepentantly Machiavellian establishment demon like Rove. In the meantime, all these Kool-Aid drinkers with their eyes glued to the idiot box actually do lose sight of the plainly obvious fact that there is no distinction whatsoever between Rove outing "Joe Wilson's wife" and Rove outing "Valerie Plame." This semantic trick is so pitiably stupid that it boggles the mind how the establishment media can succeed at such absurd damage control. Nevertheless, the establishment media does succeed at brushing the matter under the rug and "exonnerating" a rat like Rove whose guilt has been freely exposed in broad daylight. So, no, I do not see what difference it makes whether the indictments are in fact real and/or if masses of people online come to believe it. "Resistance is futile." :lol: :lol: :lol:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Andy '85

Now if I want disturbing news, this is what I'd be looking at.

Never mind young man. Let's just move along folks.

Mr. Rumsfeld just "heard" about this. The 9-11 Commission says no one told them such a thing. Nothing to "see" here.

You got that attitude right. Well done, Mr. Saari.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Meanwhile, weapons from the Medes have shown up in Mesopotamia or so says the SecDef. It all depends on what "weapons" means; it could have been toenail clippers carried by pilgrims to Najaf or Karbala or something quite a bit more nasty.

Originally Posted by BBC

He(our poet) said the arms were "clearly" Iranian but refused to describe them or say how many had been identified.

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

We've been here before, eh?

Hugo-winning writer Charles Stross, from Scotland, has said he will not come to the United States again except for urgent reasons. His reasoning given here.

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/

This goes beyond being in a Fourth Turning.

Originally Posted by Idiot Girl

Hugo-winning writer Charles Stross, from Scotland, has said he will not come to the United States again except for urgent reasons. His reasoning given here.

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/

This goes beyond being in a Fourth Turning.

No, unfortunately, it is 4T.

Originally Posted by JTaber 1972

Originally Posted by Idiot Girl

Hugo-winning writer Charles Stross, from Scotland, has said he will not come to the United States again except for urgent reasons. His reasoning given here.

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/

This goes beyond being in a Fourth Turning.

No, unfortunately, it is 4T.

And, impossible as it sounds now, it could be an early step on America's road to virtually Tokugawan (or Tibetan) isolationism and xenophobia.

I can now, looking back, see the signposts showing where this 4T is going.

Signpost 1: Dating back to the 90s and earlier - billboards urging us to vote because it is your *privilege*. The same confusion of privilege and rights even made its way into the newspaper's crossword puzzle. We badly need a Rectification of Names here. [For those who grew up with this confusion: your child has a *right* to be fed by you. The ice cream cone is a *privilege*.

Signpost 2: people's reaction to the revelations out of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. One newspaper columnist excoriated anyone who would allow any rights (or privileges) to the "terrorists and murderers" incarcerated therein. Question: how does he know they are all guilty? Have they been tried and convicted? One can only assume he and others like him are going on the premise that "If the government has seen fir to imprison them, they must therefore be guilty."

Signpost 3: the Kelo v. New London decision, in which to my everlasting shame, the judges on my side of the fence favored, and none of my left-Wing weeklies have even mentioned. I intend to take them to task for this.

Signpost 4: the reasons given by Charles Stross for not wanting to come to or even pass through the United States.

Originally Posted by Idiot Girl

I can now, looking back, see the signposts showing where this 4T is going.

Signpost 1: Dating back to the 90s and earlier - billboards urging us to vote because it is your *privilege*...

Signpost 2: people's reaction to the revelations out of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay...

Hmm... We are fighting not for "rights," "equality," or some similar principle, but to maintain the life style to which we have become accustomed? The basic approach is to trade off as much liberty as necessary to acquire security? Is this a fair summary?

From time to time I have noted that come the Fourth Turning, the side extending Enlightenment principles of rights and equality tends to squish the faction attempting to maintain a privileged status quo. Problem is, at the moment the reactionary fundamentalists of both Western and Islamic civilizations are making most of the noise. The progressives haven't got focused yet. Thus, there is nowhere to go but down. Much noise and fury, not much in the way of systematically creating a society that addresses the underlying problems of the day.

Originally Posted by JTaber 1972

Originally Posted by Idiot Girl

Hugo-winning writer Charles Stross, from Scotland, has said he will not come to the United States again except for urgent reasons. His reasoning given here.

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/

This goes beyond being in a Fourth Turning.

No, unfortunately, it is 4T.

Remember, America had a very similar reaction in 1917-1920 (and then turned on immigrants almost completely in 1924) which was during a third turning.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Idiot Girl

I can now, looking back, see the signposts showing where this 4T is going.

Signpost 1: Dating back to the 90s and earlier - billboards urging us to vote because it is your *privilege*...

Signpost 2: people's reaction to the revelations out of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay...

Hmm... We are fighting not for "rights," "equality," or some similar principle, but to maintain the life style to which we have become accustomed? The basic approach is to trade off as much liberty as necessary to acquire security? Is this a fair summary?

From time to time I have noted that come the Fourth Turning, the side extending Enlightenment principles of rights and equality tends to squish the faction attempting to maintain a privileged status quo. Problem is, at the moment the reactionary fundamentalists of both Western and Islamic civilizations are making most of the noise. The progressives haven't got focused yet. Thus, there is nowhere to go but down. Much noise and fury, not much in the way of systematically creating a society that addresses the underlying problems of the day.

I'm sure they'll find their focus after Peak Credit sends us into an economic vortex of contraction.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by JTaber 1972

Originally Posted by Idiot Girl

Hugo-winning writer Charles Stross, from Scotland, has said he will not come to the United States again except for urgent reasons. His reasoning given here.

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/

This goes beyond being in a Fourth Turning.

No, unfortunately, it is 4T.

Remember, America had a very similar reaction in 1917-1920 (and then turned on immigrants almost completely in 1924) which was during a third turning.

To me, this is just one more symptom of a turning change.

Stephen Roach, Morgan Stanley's chief economist is still playing Jeremiah. But Jeremiah was eventually right.

Hints of Peak Credit and the end of the Long Boom third turning:

http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata...n.html#anchor0

**For Discussion Purposes Only**


Global: Beneath the Surface

Stephen Roach (New York)


Ah, for the perspective of the summer break. For me, it came just in the nick of time. Not much has broken my way over the past few months. The soft patch turned out to be shorter and softer than I had thought, as the US-led global business cycle once again has demonstrated its time-honored resilience. This reflects what is by now an all-too-familiar theme: On the surface, the global economy seems to be doing just fine. Yet just beneath that seemingly tranquil surface, the imbalances and tensions are only getting worse.

The shock of the summer -- or for that matter of the year -- has been the unrelenting surge in oil prices. In real, or inflation-adjusted, terms WTI-based oil prices are now more than 25% above levels reached in the run-up to the first Gulf War in late 1990 and back to levels last seen in late 1982. In the past six months, alone, the increase has been close to 40% -- taking real oil prices up more than three-fold relative to levels prevailing at the trough of the last recession in late 2001. Yet even more stunning than the price run-up itself has been the apparent resilience of the global economy to this full-blown energy price shock. Standard rules of thumb tell us that every $10 increase in oil prices should knock about 0.4% off GDP growth during the following four quarters. But after the briefest of soft patches this spring, the world proceeded to zig rather than zag, as the business cycle miraculously sprang back to life. So much for the precision -- or even the relevance -- of our time-honored macro metrics! Those who felt that $50 oil would derail the global economy have been dead wrong. Why worry about $60 or even $70?

The reason to worry, in my view, is that the cost of this cyclical resilience in the face of an energy shock is not without serious consequences for an unbalanced world. In particular, it has pushed the asset-dependent American consumer to a new state of excess. At first blush, there seems to be little reason to worry -- according to our US team, personal consumption growth is tracking a 5.5% gain in the current quarter. But consider the costs of that stellar accomplishment -- a personal saving rate that has finally hit the “zero” threshold, debt ratios that continue to move into the stratosphere, and asset-led underpinnings of residential property markets that are now firmly in bubble territory. Courtesy of surging oil prices, these costs are now at the breaking point, in my view.

Consider the saving position of the American consumer. The flaws of this measure are well known -- especially the exclusion of saving traceable to capital gains on asset holdings. But shifts in the national-income-based personal saving rate do a perfectly adequate job in depicting disparate movements of labor-market-dominated income generation and personal spending. On that basis, there can be no mistaking the precarious position of today’s US consumer. In the face of an unprecedented shortfall of labor income -- with real compensation growth in the 44 months of the current expansion running $282 billion below the path of the typical cycle -- consumers have not even flinched. Reflecting a new asset-dependent spending mindset -- first arising out of the equity bubble of the late 1990s and more recently supported by the property bubble -- US households have been more than willing to draw their income-based saving rates down into unprecedented territory.

While this penchant for spending may make sense in normal periods, it is the height of recklessness in the face of an energy shock. In the two oil shocks of the 1970s, the personal saving rate averaged about 9.5%, whereas in the oil shock just prior to the Gulf War of early 1991, it was around 7%. That means that in each of those earlier instances, US consumers had a cushion of saving they could draw upon in order to maintain existing lifestyles. Today’s “zero” saving rate underscores the total absence of any such cushion. The only backstop available to support the spending excesses of American consumers is the saving that is now embedded in their over-valued homes. Yet with the housing bubble now in the danger zone, that’s not exactly a comfort zone.

There is another eerie parallel with earlier energy shocks that should not be taken lightly. Just prior to the two oil price spikes of the 1970s, discretionary spending by US households had also gone to excess. The GDP share of consumer durables and residential construction -- the latter being a proxy for the discretionary demand for shelter -- was running at peak levels of around 14.5%. In the aftermath of those two earlier energy shocks, discretionary spending collapsed -- with the combined share of consumer durables and homebuilding falling to 11.5% in the mid-1970s and 10.5% in the early 1980s. These were the most severe consumer-led recessions on record in the United States. In the current expansion, discretionary household spending has moved into a similar zone of excess. The combined share of consumer durables and residential construction has averaged 14.3% of GDP over the past year -- virtually identical to peak shares hit just before the two energy-shock-induced consumption collapses of the 1970s. In other words, just as the energy shocks of the 1970s hit US households at a point when their spending behavior had gone to excess, the same is the case in the present climate. Yet unlike those earlier periods, today’s asset-dependent, overly-indebted American consumer is lacking any semblance of a backstop of income-based saving to shore up the downside. It would be one thing if American consumers were committed to defending modest lifestyles. It is another thing altogether in today’s era of excess -- there is much more room and greater urgency for consolidation.

At the same time, a persistence of spending excesses by the income-short US consumer also underscore the potential pyrotechnics of a major current account adjustment -- yet another problem that was not evident during earlier energy shocks. The more consumers push income-based saving rates toward zero, the greater the depressant on national saving -- and the greater the need to import surplus saving from abroad in order to fund economic growth. And, of course, the only way for a saving-short economy to attract that foreign capital is to run massive current-account and trade deficits. June’s outsize US trade gap of nearly $59 billion -- the third largest monthly shortfall on record -- only underscores this bias. Nor was this a problem during earlier energy shocks. In the two oil-related disruptions of the 1970s, the US current account was basically in balance, whereas in the pre-Gulf War shock of late 1990 there was only a small deficit that was soon to turn into America’s last current-account surplus in 1991. Today’s nearly 6.5% US current-account deficit underscores America’s unprecedented external vulnerability in the midst of an energy shock. The more income-short American consumers keep on spending to defend their overly-indulgent lifestyles, the larger the US current-account and trade deficits are likely to be -- and the greater the possibility of an external funding problem that could result in a weaker dollar and/or wider cross-border spreads for US interest rates.

So far, only the dollar -- and possibly gold -- seem to be sniffing out this possibility. The renewed weakening of the US currency has been reinforced by recent improvements in the cyclical state of the Japanese economy that appear to be more than offsetting the potential ramifications of a stunning setback to postal reform. The bond market, by contrast, remains well bid -- rallying yet again in recent days even in the face of signs of increased cyclicality of the global business cycle. Two developments continue to underpin bonds, in my view -- persistent signs of subdued inflation and the ever-present potential of an energy-shock-induced shortfall to economic growth.

I don’t know where oil prices are going. But I do feel strongly that an important macro threshold has now been breached -- one that adds unmistakable tension to the world economy’s greatest imbalances. At the current level of oil prices, I suspect one of two things will happen -- either the over-extended American consumer will finally cave or the long-awaited US current account adjustment will finally unfold. Courtesy of a full-blown energy shock, the venting of global imbalances can no longer be deferred indefinitely. If consumers remain unflinching in the face of sky-high oil prices, a plunging saving rate will push an already outsize current account deficit to the flash point.

As always, duration matters. If oil prices fall back quickly and sharply, all will be forgotten and the consequences will be minimal. Unfortunately, that’s a bet the financial market consensus has been making for far too long. All this points to what could be the biggest macro call that any of us will have to make for a long time -- the capitulation of the unflinching American consumer. Needless to say, this would have profound implications for the rest of the global economy -- largely a US-centric world that is utterly lacking in support from autonomous domestic consumption.

Over the years, I’ve learned to be wary of betting against the American consumer. But the history of energy shocks argues to the contrary. Moreover, today’s saving-short, asset-dependent, overly-indebted consumer is far more vulnerable than in the past. After years of such warnings, investors, of course, have all but given up on that possibility. That’s precisely the time to worry the most.

Right now I'm cramming in as many necessary upgrades and repairs as I can while I still can, such as getting a crown on a tooth, replacing a clunky old washing machine and toilet, etc. It hurts to feel the money going out, but the gods only know if I'll be able to do it later!

From time to time I have noted that come the Fourth Turning, the side extending Enlightenment principles of rights and equality tends to squish the faction attempting to maintain a privileged status quo. Problem is, at the moment the reactionary fundamentalists of both Western and Islamic civilizations are making most of the noise. The progressives haven't got focused yet. Thus, there is nowhere to go but down. Much noise and fury, not much in the way of systematically creating a society that addresses the underlying problems of the day.

This is why I think (hope) that the 4T is still a few years away. Someone in one of these threads said that at this time the generations are in the same constellation that they were at the beginning of the civil war. It would certainly be unpleasant to go thru another fiasco like that. Does anyone know when the generations will be in a constellation that approximates the beginning of the last crisis era (depression/WWII)?

Originally Posted by jadams

From time to time I have noted that come the Fourth Turning, the side extending Enlightenment principles of rights and equality tends to squish the faction attempting to maintain a privileged status quo. Problem is, at the moment the reactionary fundamentalists of both Western and Islamic civilizations are making most of the noise. The progressives haven't got focused yet. Thus, there is nowhere to go but down. Much noise and fury, not much in the way of systematically creating a society that addresses the underlying problems of the day.

This is why I think (hope) that the 4T is still a few years away. Someone in one of these threads said that at this time the generations are in the same constellation that they were at the beginning of the civil war. It would certainly be unpleasant to go thru another fiasco like that. Does anyone know when the generations will be in a constellation that approximates the beginning of the last crisis era (depression/WWII)?

Actually, the constellation is VERY different from the Civil War. At the start of the Civil War Crisis, the Transies were 68, the Gilded were 38, and the proto-Civics were 17. If 2001 is was the start of the 4T, then Boomers were 58, the Xers were 40, and the Millies were 19. Although the Reactives and proto-Civics were not much different age, the Idealists were. Boomers are a short generation, being only 18 years in length. The Transies, OTOH, were 29 years in length. If the 4T started in 2005, then Boomers are 62, Xers are 44, and Millies 23 at the start of the Crisis, which is WELL off the mark of the Civil War Crisis.

When the last Crisis began in 1929, the Missionary were 69, the Lost were 46, while the GIs were 28. Most 4Ts began with a similar age. These ages are about normal in the course of history. Let's say that the 4T won't start until Boomers turn 68. Then the 4T would start in 2011. Over the course of history, Awakenings and Crises followed similar age patterns, with Crises being more exact.

When the last Crisis began in 1929, the Missionary were 69, the Lost were 46, while the GIs were 28. Most 4Ts began with a similar age. These ages are about normal in the course of history. Let's say that the 4T won't start until Boomers turn 68. Then the 4T would start in 2011

Thanks, this is very helpful.

Originally Posted by Shemsu Heru

When the last Crisis began in 1929, the Missionary were 69, the Lost were 46, while the GIs were 28. Most 4Ts began with a similar age. These ages are about normal in the course of history. Let's say that the 4T won't start until Boomers turn 68. Then the 4T would start in 2011. Over the course of history, Awakenings and Crises followed similar age patterns, with Crises being more exact.

Well, that might throw out the supposedly shorter saeculum theory that's been discussed here. In fact, concerning the GIs, how on Earth did they get a large seven year head delay from the 3T? The average delay from generation to turning usually falls around four years.

If the 3T to last up to 2011, then it would equal the other 27 year 3T in the Revolutionary Saeculum that yielded a 24 year large Civic generation.

So what consequences happen with a large Civic generation?

I think it is pretty clear that there has been saecular compaction. Look at the first cohort line ups of the last three turning changes and compare to today:

Code:

1946       1964       1984       2005
 63         63         59         62
 45         39         41         44
 21         21         23         23

By this standard it is not outlandish whatsoever to say we are in ripe territory for a turning change. But there is no doubt that these ages were higher prior to 1946 -- indeed MUCH higher centuries ago (which is why I explored a three phase saeculum in another thread).

What could cause this? Well according to Strauss and Howe:

Originally Posted by Strauss & Howe

Where a season's length is determined by the time of solstice to equinox, the length of each life-cycle phase is determined by the span of time between birth and coming of age into young adulthood. [T4T, p. 57]

In place of "young adulthood" I put "net social autonomy". In agricultural societies that could be up to 25-30 years of age for young males. It was not uncommon for twentysomethings to be under the shadow of a father or uncle in the same village or even household.

Nowadays in our society I'd say that age is around 20, maybe even 19. That would make the permutations for the life phase boundaries 20, 40, 60 or possibly 19, 38, 57 (hell, "senior citizen menu discounts" are starting at 55 :wink: ).

I believe a turning enters a "senescent" phase when the leading cohorts of the next-junior archetypes approach and start spilling over into the next phase. Like now (if 20 years is the marker) Boomers are over by 2, Xers by 4, Millies by 3. Heck, looking at 1984's line up, I wonder if 19 isn't the discerning number! This is especially so since I think the 3T actually started implanting in 1983 (yes, Jenny, I am in deviation from Strauss & Howe ).

Originally Posted by Andy '85

Originally Posted by Shemsu Heru

When the last Crisis began in 1929, the Missionary were 69, the Lost were 46, while the GIs were 28. Most 4Ts began with a similar age. These ages are about normal in the course of history. Let's say that the 4T won't start until Boomers turn 68. Then the 4T would start in 2011. Over the course of history, Awakenings and Crises followed similar age patterns, with Crises being more exact.

Well, that might throw out the supposedly shorter saeculum theory that's been discussed here. In fact, concerning the GIs, how on Earth did they get a large seven year head delay from the 3T? The average delay from generation to turning usually falls around four years.

I really doubt that the 4T will wait until 2011, though. As for why there has been a delay, I'm not sure. But the delay is pretty consistent with turning change before the prior Crisis. It is only during this saeculum that that the cycles have been compacted, as Mr. Gibbons has shown in the above post.

If the 3T to last up to 2011, then it would equal the other 27 year 3T in the Revolutionary Saeculum that yielded a 24 year large Civic generation.

So what consequences happen with a large Civic generation?

Not totally sure. Recall what happened the last time we had an unusually long Idealist generation, which led to the Civil War "anomaly" (although there is considerable debate as to whether or not there WAS an anomaly). It is possible that such an outcome will result in the skipping of an Idealist archetype.