[quote=Shemsu Heru]

Originally Posted by "Andy '85"}So what consequences happen with a large Civic generation?[/quote

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.

Originally Posted by Shemsu Heru

Originally Posted by Andy '85

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.

Or if one accepts the argument that the 'Era of Good Feelings' 1T was itself unusually long (roughly similar base occurrence), then an unusually large Civic Generation could also lead to a similarly overzealous, out-of-control Idealist Generation, all too much like the Transies. :shock:

Originally Posted by Shemsu Heru

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.

Perhaps. An early-2011 4T Catalyst might infer that the 3T Catalyst wasn't Morning In America after all, but rather the Challenger explosion in January 1986. This would give us a 22-year Awakening (1964-85), still nearly an average-length Turning, yet a somewhat-long Unravelling of 25 years (1986-2010)....the Millies would then cover 26 birth year cohorts 1982-2007. If the Crisis ends in 2030, this would give us a Millennial Saeculum 85 years in length... about what we'd normally expect, and the death knell to Mike A.'s 18-year-Turning subtheory.

Not that this is what I expect. I still believe that 911 was probably the Catalyst and will be looked back upon in 20 years as such. However if it wasn't, the 4T trigger lurks just around the corner... probably either Peak Oil, Peak Credit, the bursting of the housing bubble, or (My God) all three simultaneously :shock: .

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Shemsu Heru

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.

Perhaps. An early-2011 4T Catalyst might infer that the 3T Catalyst wasn't Morning In America after all, but rather the Challenger explosion in January 1986. This would give us a 22-year Awakening (1964-85), still nearly an average-length Turning, yet a somewhat-long Unravelling of 25 years (1986-2010)....the Millies would then cover 26 birth year cohorts 1982-2007. If the Crisis ends in 2030, this would give us a Millennial Saeculum 85 years in length... about what we'd normally expect, and the death knell to Mike A.'s 18-year-Turning subtheory.

Not that this is what I expect. I still believe that 911 was probably the Catalyst and will be looked back upon in 20 years as such. However if it wasn't, the 4T trigger lurks just around the corner... probably either Peak Oil, Peak Credit, the bursting of the housing bubble, or (My God) all three simultaneously :shock: .

Peak Credit and the Housing Bust will almost certainly happen together. Peak Oil is the wild card.

Three generations, one home

Growth rate doubles for dwellings with grandparents, parents, and kids - bucking independent-living trend.

For Discussion Only

By Sara B. Miller | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

PITTSBURGH – Households brimming with three generations call up images of an era when the more hands a family had, the better its chance of survival.
But for Jessica Lawrence, a separated mother of two, it's just as imperative now. Childcare costs, monthly rent for her Pittsburgh apartment, and electric bills were swallowing her pay from a retail job.

"I put it off to the point where I couldn't keep going anymore," Ms. Lawrence says. So she moved her kids in with her parents, joining millions of Americans returning to multigenerational living. The number of American households with three or more generations living under the same roof rose 38 percent from 1990 to 2000, according to a new report from the United States Census Bureau.

Multigenerational households still represent a small percentage of US living arrangements. But the increase - more than double the growth of US households overall - shows that many Americans are starting to reverse the long-term pattern of living independently, experts say.

Both the longevity of seniors and their desire to live in age-integrated communities plays a role in multigenerational living. Many times unmarried mothers will move back with their parents. Immigration from countries where the cultural norm is to live with extended families is also a factor.

But many experts say it is a trend that, even with positive byproducts, is driven in large part by financial strain.

"There were some winners and some losers in the 1990s economy," says Andrew Cherlin, a professor of public policy and sociology at Johns Hopkins University. "This is not happening because of family sentiment. It's happening because the middle generation needs help."

From 1990 to 2000, multigenerational households increased from 3 million to 4.2 million, representing 3.9 percent of all US households. Nearly two-thirds of three-generation households include the householder as grandparent, living with the child and grandchild generation. About a third include households where the parent generation is the householder, living with both a grandparent and grandchild.

That many in the parent generation appear to be moving in with their parents is a reflection of the high cost of living today, says Frances Goldscheider, a professor of sociology at Brown University. When home prices are stable, families tend to separate, she says. As soon as they spike, "it is harder and harder for people to live independently."

In some cases, grandparents are moving in with their children, as older people live longer, healthier lives - sometimes outliving their resources. But parents are also moving in with their parents because seniors tend to have more resources, especially those who bought homes before prices surged, Dr. Cherlin says.

The Census Bureau did not break down data by race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. But immigration might be playing a role in the uptick, suggests Donna Butts, the executive director of Generations United, a Washington-based nonprofit that promotes intergenerational public policy and programs.

"As families immigrate to this country, it is more part of the norm to stay together as it was in this country when it was first settling," she says.

Although higher mortality rates meant that life spans did not overlap as much as they do today, families were far less mobile in the 18th century, tending to stick in clusters. With industrialization, Americans gravitated to economic opportunities in faraway cities. But decades-old customs are changing, Ms. Butts says. Retirement communities have disillusioned many seniors and growing numbers are opting to retire where they lived working lives, or near - or with - their kids, she says.

Patricia McConnell moved in 1999 to an apartment adjacent to the house where her daughter and son-in-law, and their three young children live in Waltham, Mass. She moved mostly for convenience, she says: Her daughter was expecting her third child and urged her mother to move in. She had some reservations, though.

"I didn't want to lose my independence," Ms. McConnell says. But the benefits have outweighed any initial trepidation. She bathes the grandchildren, helps them with their homework, and three generations share a meal together most evenings. "It creates all kinds of bonds," she says.

Such living arrangements might be easier than in the past. In terms of politics, education, and social views, the generation gap is closing, Dr. Goldscheider says.

"When people have very different values, it is harder to live together," she says.

In fact, Vern Bengtson, a professor of sociology and gerontology at the University of Southern California at Los Angeles, says that families are the most cohesive they have been in history. But others say it remains to be seen whether this is a long-term trend. Multigenerational households can aggravate tensions, Cherlin says. And as parents get more stable jobs, they are likely to find their own homes, he says.

"Americans like to be independent," Cherlin says. "They like to be near their relatives, but not living with them."

Ms. Lawrence plans on moving into her own home once she finishes college and can support her family.

"I'm grateful to my parents, but I would love to own my own apartment, have my own pots and pans," she says. "It's a little bit like living out of the guest room."

The femme fatale is back, and they're young.

Surely a sign of an impending fourth. Where is our Sam Spade?

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.

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 can easily see the Crisis of 2020 beginning in 2006 or 2008 solely on political grounds. Any big contest of the elections for fairness, and any cheating that results in the nominal winner deciding to outlaw or vet the other Party will create a very nasty scene.

The first decade of the new millennium looks more like the 1920s than it loks like any decade of the 20th century. (Again, the eighty-year rule). The question is whether America going into the next Crisis will look more like Germany in 1930 or America in 1930. We don't know yet.

The Millennials, as I have said elsewhere, won't push their cultural norms until their eldest are nearly middle-aged -- about when Thirteeners start giving up the reckless hedonism and mellow out. So it was around 1930, and quite likely the economic meltdown of 1929-1933 hastened that trend. Hunger silences all assertions of culture.

If the Crisis happens early, hard, and fast, then of course a Civil War-like scenario, even involving secession, is possible. Boomers will be discredited, Thirteeners will become an odd combination of secularists and extreme individualists infamous for predatory behavior, and Millennials will turn quickly into Progressive-like adults, more scarred than empowered. The Progressives were a good generation, but not a great one, and youth born during the Crisis and for about fifteen years afterwards will be Missionary-like youth.

As I see it, one of the great faults of the current cycle is the unusual weakness of the Silent Generation. It's too bad that we didn't get an RFK instead of perhaps Jimmy Carter, and the likelihood of America getting a Dick Gephart or Dick Lugar as President has become almost nil. Cheney just isn't Presidential, and he'd muck things up badly (as if that would be a change). I wonder what sort of consequences that has.

Originally Posted by Shemsu Heru

I really doubt that the 4T will wait until 2011, though..

How would you know? I think everybody here is assuming that we are going to be able to tell when a turning change occurs at the time. Is this assumption really true? All previous turnings were determined retrospectively. 911 is a pretty big event. More than 5000 Americans are dead in the ongoing WOT and the toll continues to mount. Politics hasn't been this rancorous in living memory nor has the nation been so divided.

Oil prices have tripled from their 1990's levels and give every sign of rising higher. This development promises to change lives dramatically, in fact its already changing some lives.

Now a lot of you draw comparison between today and the post-WW I period. There is big difference between now and then though. Things calmed down rapidly after 1921. The reason for this was the New Era, a period of interbellumn prosperity brought about by the New Era bull market. Without the New Era there would be no '29 crash and no great depression. Instead we would probably have seen two decades of weak growth and a continuiation of 1910's unrest until WW II. Had this happened, I suspect S&H would have dated the crisis earlier.

We already had our new era bull market, back in the 1990's. Fans of Harry Dent's The Roaring 2000's think we are going to get another, even bigger one in the 2000's. Well the 2000's are half over and they sure as hell haven't "roared". I expect the market to advance over the next few years, but I think its safe to say the 23-35K levels on the Dow that Dent forecast aren't going to happen.

So we aren't going to have the break we had in the 1920's, making it more likely that future saecularists are going to lump the 2000's in with post-peak years of the 2010's as one long crisis.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Shemsu Heru

I really doubt that the 4T will wait until 2011, though..

How would you know? I think everybody here is assuming that we are going to be able to tell when a turning change occurs at the time. Is this assumption really true? All previous turnings were determined retrospectively. 911 is a pretty big event. More than 5000 Americans are dead in the ongoing WOT and the toll continues to mount. Politics hasn't been this rancorous in living memory nor has the nation been so divided.

Oil prices have tripled from their 1990's levels and give every sign of rising higher. This development promises to change lives dramatically, in fact its already changing some lives.

Now a lot of you draw comparison between today and the post-WW I period. There is big difference between now and then though. Things calmed down rapidly after 1921. The reason for this was the New Era, a period of interbellumn prosperity brought about by the New Era bull market. Without the New Era there would be no '29 crash and no great depression. Instead we would probably have seen two decades of weak growth and a continuiation of 1910's unrest until WW II. Had this happened, I suspect S&H would have dated the crisis earlier.

We already had our new era bull market, back in the 1990's. Fans of Harry Dent's The Roaring 2000's think we are going to get another, even bigger one in the 2000's. Well the 2000's are half over and they sure as hell haven't "roared". I expect the market to advance over the next few years, but I think its safe to say the 23-35K levels on the Dow that Dent forecast aren't going to happen.

So we aren't going to have the break we had in the 1920's, making it more likely that future saecularists are going to lump the 2000's in with post-peak years of the 2010's as one long crisis.

One must agree that we can't be too sure. The 19th century British 4T demonstrates that. It did not roll in with a blaze of glory. Did it start with the 1857 Panic, or the death of Palmerston, or something else? One thing seems clear to me: That 4T's morphology demonstrates that Crises can be smoothly transitioned into, and can be mild, and can do without total war.

That said, in our specific saecular germ line (if you will) the last four 4T openings were dramatic: 1929-33, 1859-61, 1773-76, 1675-77. As you know, I call them "cascades". One or more aspects of the old institutional order collapsed dramatically in each case. I suspect our strong linear mindset, as pointed out by Strauss & Howe, has something to do with this.

Beyond this, I see both the Culture Wars and Long Boom, which are to me inherent aspect of this third turning, still continuing. In the former, we are still dickering around, if now more anxiously, and in with the latter, we are still acting like their is no tomorrow. Emphasis on individual agency is still quite high, and a concentration on (inner-world) values-talk is still paramount.

I know you see certain economic patterns crossing thresholds around 2001-2005, and I respect that. But I am waiting for a sign that a cascade has begun, worthy in drama of the last four, that brings the Culture Wars to a head (for good or ill) and/or ends the Long Boom.

Will 9/11 be seen in retrospect as the trigger or a precursor? Nobody can know for sure. But unless you are right about your mild hegemonic 4T theory, I don't see the signs . . . yet.

When this site started, nearly ten years ago, we had lively debates about generational boundaries. The authors had to make a lot of quick decisions when they were writing the book and after much thought, I concluded that they had made a few mistakes. The choice of 1861 for Missionaries was quite arbitrary and really quite at odds with their general theory; I'd say 1865 would have been more reasonable, and 1885 for the Lost. (I had two 1884 grandparents and my grandmother was pure missionary, believe me. My grandfather, whom I knew personally, was however more Lost.)

Thus, by my reckoning, the oldest missionaries were only 64 when the last crisis began, and 2007 would be soon enough. I also would argue that pure GIs weren't being born until 1905--there are lots of people in the 1901-4 period who are clearly Lost types, including Lindbergh and George F. Kennan. But that would mean the oldest GIs were just 24 when the 4T began and the oldest Millennials will turn 24 next year.

So look out.

And if you want some very disturbing news, see my post on the 4T President forum.

David K '47

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

When this site started, nearly ten years ago, we had lively debates about generational boundaries. The authors had to make a lot of quick decisions when they were writing the book and after much thought, I concluded that they had made a few mistakes. The choice of 1861 for Missionaries was quite arbitrary and really quite at odds with their general theory; I'd say 1865 would have been more reasonable, and 1885 for the Lost. (I had two 1884 grandparents and my grandmother was pure missionary, believe me. My grandfather, whom I knew personally, was however more Lost.)

William Jennings Bryan was a Progressive?!? :shock:

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

When this site started, nearly ten years ago, we had lively debates about generational boundaries. The authors had to make a lot of quick decisions when they were writing the book and after much thought, I concluded that they had made a few mistakes. The choice of 1861 for Missionaries was quite arbitrary and really quite at odds with their general theory; I'd say 1865 would have been more reasonable, and 1885 for the Lost. (I had two 1884 grandparents and my grandmother was pure missionary, believe me. My grandfather, whom I knew personally, was however more Lost.)

Thus, by my reckoning, the oldest missionaries were only 64 when the last crisis began, and 2007 would be soon enough. I also would argue that pure GIs weren't being born until 1905--there are lots of people in the 1901-4 period who are clearly Lost types, including Lindbergh and George F. Kennan. But that would mean the oldest GIs were just 24 when the 4T began and the oldest Millennials will turn 24 next year.

So look out.

And if you want some very disturbing news, see my post on the 4T President forum.

David K '47

You could be right, but those Edward Hopper paintings (and he was born in 1882, right on the cusp) look awful lost-like to me.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Shemsu Heru

I really doubt that the 4T will wait until 2011, though..

How would you know? I think everybody here is assuming that we are going to be able to tell when a turning change occurs at the time. Is this assumption really true? All previous turnings were determined retrospectively. 911 is a pretty big event. More than 5000 Americans are dead in the ongoing WOT and the toll continues to mount. Politics hasn't been this rancorous in living memory nor has the nation been so divided.

Oil prices have tripled from their 1990's levels and give every sign of rising higher. This development promises to change lives dramatically, in fact its already changing some lives.

Now a lot of you draw comparison between today and the post-WW I period. There is big difference between now and then though. Things calmed down rapidly after 1921. The reason for this was the New Era, a period of interbellumn prosperity brought about by the New Era bull market. Without the New Era there would be no '29 crash and no great depression. Instead we would probably have seen two decades of weak growth and a continuiation of 1910's unrest until WW II. Had this happened, I suspect S&H would have dated the crisis earlier.

We already had our new era bull market, back in the 1990's. Fans of Harry Dent's The Roaring 2000's think we are going to get another, even bigger one in the 2000's. Well the 2000's are half over and they sure as hell haven't "roared". I expect the market to advance over the next few years, but I think its safe to say the 23-35K levels on the Dow that Dent forecast aren't going to happen.

So we aren't going to have the break we had in the 1920's, making it more likely that future saecularists are going to lump the 2000's in with post-peak years of the 2010's as one long crisis.

I am curious about the housing boom of the 2000s, however; one that isn't confined to the East and West coasts of the US but has been going on in Britain, Australia, and possibly other parts of Europe. Have there been real estate booms in other 4Ts? What does the historical record show? To me, the housing boom says "3T".

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I am curious about the housing boom of the 2000s, however; one that isn't confined to the East and West coasts of the US but has been going on in Britain, Australia, and possibly other parts of Europe. Have there been real estate booms in other 4Ts? What does the historical record show? To me, the housing boom says "3T".

Previous real estate booms peaked in 1818, 1836, 1854, 1872, 1890, ~1909, and 1925. After the depression there weren't any real booms for a long time. Then in modern times there were booms peaking in 1969, 1978-80, and the one now. There was a miniboom in the late 1980's too, but prices didn't get to late 1970's levels (or those of today) in that one.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I am curious about the housing boom of the 2000s, however; one that isn't confined to the East and West coasts of the US but has been going on in Britain, Australia, and possibly other parts of Europe. Have there been real estate booms in other 4Ts? What does the historical record show? To me, the housing boom says "3T".

I remember reading once of a red hot real estate boom in the 1920s, especially in Florida - which would support your assertion, as, needless to say, it went bust along with everything else in 1929-1931.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

When this site started, nearly ten years ago, we had lively debates about generational boundaries. The authors had to make a lot of quick decisions when they were writing the book and after much thought, I concluded that they had made a few mistakes. The choice of 1861 for Missionaries was quite arbitrary and really quite at odds with their general theory; I'd say 1865 would have been more reasonable, and 1885 for the Lost. (I had two 1884 grandparents and my grandmother was pure missionary, believe me. My grandfather, whom I knew personally, was however more Lost.)

William Jennings Bryan was a Progressive?!? :shock:

Maybe like Martin Luther King or Malcolm X?

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

One must agree that we can't be too sure. The 19th century British 4T demonstrates that. It did not roll in with a blaze of glory.

Um 911 was pretty spectacular, certainly as much as King Phillips War. S&H point out that KPW casulaties were large relative to the small number of colonists present at the time, but by that argument one can argue that the first few years of Jamestown which saw far, far higher death rates was a crisis too. Or the Columbia explosion which wiped out 100% of Americans in space.

That said, in our specific saecular germ line (if you will) the last four 4T openings were dramatic: 1929-33, 1859-61, 1773-76, 1675-77. As you know, I call them "cascades". One or more aspects of the old institutional order collapsed dramatically in each case.

I question that the drama in 1675 was larger than the drama for 911.

Beyond this, I see both the Culture Wars and Long Boom, which are to me inherent aspect of this third turning, still continuing. In the former, we are still dickering around, if now more anxiously, and in with the latter, we are still acting like their is no tomorrow. Emphasis on individual agency is still quite high, and a concentration on (inner-world) values-talk is still paramount.

What was the Civil War and Reconstruction if not a continuation of the 3T Culture War right into the next High? And surely the post-Crowell culture war continued on beyond 1675?

I know you see certain economic patterns crossing thresholds around 2001-2005, and I respect that. But I am waiting for a sign that a cascade has begun, worthy in drama of the last four, that brings the Culture Wars to a head (for good or ill) and/or ends the Long Boom.

Why do you think the culture war will end when it did not in half of the four previous 4T's. Was a culture war even present in the last 3T?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I am curious about the housing boom of the 2000s, however; one that isn't confined to the East and West coasts of the US but has been going on in Britain, Australia, and possibly other parts of Europe. Have there been real estate booms in other 4Ts? What does the historical record show? To me, the housing boom says "3T".

Previous real estate booms peaked in 1818, 1836, 1854, 1872, 1890, ~1909, and 1925. After the depression there weren't any real booms for a long time. Then in modern times there were booms peaking in 1969, 1978-80, and the one now. There was a miniboom in the late 1980's too, but prices didn't get to late 1970's levels (or those of today) in that one.

Sounds like real estate booms happened mostly in 1Ts and 3Ts.

The real estate boom seems to be the most persuasive argument that we be 3T. Its odd, because there are many 4T signals going around. Its a mixed bag. I discount the celebrity circus; that was certainly a feature of the Thirties. But the real estate boom.... :?:

I agree that Bryan comes across like a Prophet, and his resignation in 1915, in particular, looks like one. But so does Muhammad Ali (born 1942.) What I am saying is we can't date a whole generation based upon one man. Anomalies do exist.

My grandfather, an immgrant, and some of my older uncles were NYC contractors in the 1920s, and were wiped out by the late twenties crash. So we could be heading for a parallel there.

Since Mike Alexander is an economist I'd like to ask him about a classic (and politically incorrect) economics problem--the Chinese village that lived by doing each other's washing. It was supposed, I think, to be economically impossible--but isn't that perilously close to the situation of the US today, since we simply wait on each other, talk to each other, entertain each other, and finance each other's houses, all without making much of anything any more?

David K '47

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Um 911 was pretty spectacular, certainly as much as King Phillips War. S&H point out that KPW casulaties were large relative to the small number of colonists present at the time, but by that argument one can argue that the first few years of Jamestown which saw far, far higher death rates was a crisis too. Or the Columbia explosion which wiped out 100% of Americans in space.

KPW almost pushed us out of New England! If a couple more things had gone wrong - yikes.

Now, I of all people certainly agree with you that 9/11 was pretty dramatic. :shock: But the reaction that followed could easily be seen as 3T, as the comparison to 1917-1920 shows. Hell, WWI was pretty dramatic too.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I question that the drama in 1675 was larger than the drama for 911.

I guess we just disagree on that. I can't see how 9/11 compares to KPW. In the latter, an entire portion of our colonial population was fighting for it's survival.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

What was the Civil War and Reconstruction if not a continuation of the 3T Culture War right into the next High? And surely the post-Crowell culture war continued on beyond 1675?

Yes, but in 1861 the emphasis arguably changed from a subjective, interior focus on values to an objective, exterior focus on institutional structure. In Generations terms, Inner switched to Outer.

The English Civil War and the subsequent Commonwealth did not structurally solve anything, I suggest, because the emphasis remained on the inner world. In the 1670's (in America) and 1680's (in Britain) that finally changed and fundamental institutional change took place soon after.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Why do you think the culture war will end when it did not in half of the four previous 4T's. Was a culture war even present in the last 3T?

I am not sure it will end. But if it doesn't I predict it will change form, from an emphasis on inner values to one of institutional, outer-world focus, and that doesn't bode well for us.

I do think previous culture wars were settled (at least intrasaecularly). By 1933, 1865, and 1781 one side had pretty much dominated the other. And yes, I do think there was a "culture war" in the last 3T. It was rural Protestant America vs. urban mixed-ethnic America. Prohibition and the Monkey Trial are examples of it. By 1933, the latter had won decisively.

What worries me this time is that we are arguably more divided now than in the last 3T. Whether it approaches the depths of the two 3T's before that remains to be seen, but I hope not.

We might have a chance to measure the 3T/4T boundary by way of events unfolding in Crawford, TX. If Cindy Sheehan's side has more supporters than those who oppose her, and if significant celebrities come to her support in some dramatic way, I'd say we are on the theshold of a 4T. If events turn out otherwise: no big deal at all, just another hoorah from the war and George Bush, and eventually Cindy is driven out of town, then I'd say we are still 3T and shying away from 4T things.

--Croakmore

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Since Mike Alexander is an economist I'd like to ask him about a classic (and politically incorrect) economics problem--the Chinese village that lived by doing each other's washing. It was supposed, I think, to be economically impossible--but isn't that perilously close to the situation of the US today, since we simply wait on each other, talk to each other, entertain each other, and finance each other's houses, all without making much of anything any more?

Actually I'm a chemical engineer, but I write about financial and economic topics as a hobby.

I think we need to focus on what is meant by making. Take an athletic shoe that sells for $100 that you buy from your local Walmart. How much did the store pay for it? Let's say $77. Of this about $42 is cost of goods. Then you figure the importer takes a cut and you are down to $30. So we have 70% of the value of this manufactured good taking place in the US and 30% taking place overseas. Every dollar of shoes that is imported means $2.33 of shoe income here in the US.

You see "making something" is more than just performing the physical manipulations of matter to produce some item. It really is about creating value. I work for a drug company. What makes drugs valuable isn't the processing required to synthesize the molecule. It's what the drug does. This value was created in the drug discovery and clinical testing phase of it's original development. So these activities, none of which involve manufacturing per se, are still making something, because they create the value of the good.

So yes, it is possible that we can have a service economy. There will still be "stuff" of course, as much as we have today, but few people will be involved in making the stuff (perhaps it will be done by foreigners) just as few people are involved in growing our food. But many people will be involved in marketing and bring it to you, just as many people are involved in processing and (increasingly) preparing the food we eat. Many of the people involved in these tasks are "service" workers, but they are still involved in creating the value of the products we buy.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Since Mike Alexander is an economist I'd like to ask him about a classic (and politically incorrect) economics problem--the Chinese village that lived by doing each other's washing. It was supposed, I think, to be economically impossible--but isn't that perilously close to the situation of the US today, since we simply wait on each other, talk to each other, entertain each other, and finance each other's houses, all without making much of anything any more?

Actually I'm a chemical engineer, but I write about financial and economic topics as a hobby.

I think we need to focus on what is meant by making. Take an athletic shoe that sells for $100 that you buy from your local Walmart. How much did the store pay for it? Let's say $77. Of this about $42 is cost of goods. Then you figure the importer takes a cut and you are down to $30. So we have 70% of the value of this manufactured good taking place in the US and 30% taking place overseas. Every dollar of shoes that is imported means $2.33 of shoe income here in the US.

You see "making something" is more than just performing the physical manipulations of matter to produce some item. It really is about creating value. I work for a drug company. What makes drugs valuable isn't the processing required to synthesize the molecule. It's what the drug does. This value was created in the drug discovery and clinical testing phase of it's original development. So these activities, none of which involve manufacturing per se, are still making something, because they create the value of the good.

So yes, it is possible that we can have a service economy. There will still be "stuff" of course, as much as we have today, but few people will be involved in making the stuff (perhaps it will be done by foreigners) just as few people are involved in growing our food. But many people will be involved in marketing and bring it to you, just as many people are involved in processing and (increasingly) preparing the food we eat. Many of the people involved in these tasks are "service" workers, but they are still involved in creating the value of the products we buy.

The fundamental problem, Mike, remains: What happens when we aren't on such cozy terms with the people who make our stuff? When China finally decides to make us their Fourth World colony, how will be able to flip them off and declare war on the Red Bastards, if everything we need to fight a war is being made by them?

Sure, we can have a service economy for now... as Dave said, washing each others nasties. It is not sustainable if we wish to remain who we are as a Nation.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

The fundamental problem, Mike, remains: What happens when we aren't on such cozy terms with the people who make our stuff?

We buy it from India, Mexico and elsewhere.

When China finally decides to make us their Fourth World colony, how will be able to flip them off and declare war on the Red Bastards, if everything we need to fight a war is being made by them?

Let's rephrase this. When the US finally decides to nuke the Muslim world, how will we (Iran) be able to defend ourselves without nukes?

What is our answer to the Iranians? You will just have to trust us not to attack you. The same goes for the Chinese, I guess we will just have to trust them. The Republicans do and they are supposedly strong on defense.

I also have little fear that the Chinese have any interest in making a colony out of us, colonies are a drain on prosperity nowadays (just look at Iraq).

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I also have little fear that the Chinese have any interest in making a colony out of us, colonies are a drain on prosperity nowadays (just look at Iraq).

Maybe a blasted over wasteland instead, which doesn't have to be occupied, because the few survivors, having been bombed back to the stong age, will be generations picking themselves out of the rubble. Thus, no threat to anyone but each other, and no need for an occupation force to hold us down.