Price controls are tantamount to trying to refill your gas tank by rewinding the fuel gauge. Prices are a signal, not the thing itself. The map is not the territory!!

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Was Europe a traditional society over the 950-1300 period? If so this traditional society managed to introduce a host of newfangled things for which there were no historical precedents (i.e. they were outside of tradition). Societies that do this are not hidebound in my view.

H-m-m-m. The answer is both yes and no. The church was certainly authoritarian and hidebound, but the church was not the only actor. There was a dynamic political environment, It's hard to think of that as hidebound. After all, Europe of that period was not a closed system by any means. Even the internal politics were in flux. So politically, no. On the religous front, yes.

Originally Posted by Mikebert ...

Does the holder of these eroneous beliefs experience a direct adverse consequence to this that is easily recognized, but still holds this view? If the holder suffers no harm that he recognizes from having the erroneous belief how is it stupid or insane to hold it?

I guess I miss your point here. Are you arguing that the only standard of smart v stupid is the direct impact on the holder of the POV? If so, then most of the stupid ideas are held and promoted by very bright people, who systematically off-load the pain on others. This will be true for the intermediate future.

Originally Posted by Mikebert ...

Do those doing the touting suffer adverse consequences (which they recognize) from their touting of such views? If not then why is it stupid or insane for them to propagate error?

For example, a political party that heretofore has won power by promoting error will continue to do so until they find that it no longer works. They will then change some of their offerings in some random direction and try that. And if that doesn't work they will keep modifying things until they find a formula that works. This has not happened yet. I predict it will, in fact, it is what this 4T is about.

I hope this isn't the case, where self-serving politics is the standard model. That should lead to changes only when they directly benefit the poltical PTB, but for no other reason. The rest of us become "the rabble".

Chameleon politics, if successful, will reduce the parties to red and blue sports teams, and the business of governance will move into the shadows. Real power, in that model, is private. We have far too much of that now.

Marx (or is it Lennon?)
A 4T does not have to change everything about a culture. A society, even a "traditional" one, can maintain substantial cultural continuity while still changing in response to internal and external dynamics.

4Ts are more about institutions than culture. So there could be an institutional upheaval with cultural continuity.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

For example, a political party that heretofore has won power by promoting error will continue to do so until they find that it no longer works. They will then change some of their offerings in some random direction and try that. And if that doesn't work they will keep modifying things until they find a formula that works. This has not happened yet. I predict it will, in fact, it is what this 4T is about.

Republicans today are not motivated by what works or by what wins elections. They are motivated by ideology and religion. They will not change. The change in this 4T will be that the Republicans decline and fall and new parties and political systems may arise.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Price controls are tantamount to trying to refill your gas tank by rewinding the fuel gauge. Prices are a signal, not the thing itself. The map is not the territory!!

Yes, but keeping track of money and prices is how economics is run.

There is really no excuse for the high prices which business charges today. It is pure greed and extortion, and they get away with it because the free market ideology will not allow "interference." It is time for free-market ideology to end. Interference with the market is necessary.

Eric, I think there is some substantial misunderstanding here about what markets are and how they work. They are an administrative mechanism, nothing more. You could advocate massive intervention in the economy and still realize that distorting prices is silly. You aren't actually addressing the issue.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Eric, I think there is some substantial misunderstanding here about what markets are and how they work. They are an administrative mechanism, nothing more. You could advocate massive intervention in the economy and still realize that distorting prices is silly. You aren't actually addressing the issue.

The prices as they exist are distorted; they are high for the purpose of amassing profits and huge salaries for a few people. Commodity prices are distorted because they are not determined by need and supply, but by speculation. That is how things are done; that doesn't mean it is necessary.

Prices are not just a "signal" or a "gauge" to people who can't make ends meet because they can't afford to pay for what they need. Somehow the guys charging them will not listen to someone who says, "give me this item or service for less money; after all Mr(s) Clerk, money is just a symbol!"

Yes, Eric, prices are distorted. That will eventually need to resolve itself. Somethings are artificially cheap, some are artificially expensive. I suspect the causes of that are more complicated than just evil businessmen with black hats, monocles, and epic moustaches. Or evil gubmint bureaucrats, for that matter.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Yes, Eric, prices are distorted. That will eventually need to resolve itself. Somethings are artificially cheap, some are artificially expensive. I suspect the causes of that are more complicated than just evil businessmen with black hats, monocles, and epic moustaches. Or evil gubmint bureaucrats, for that matter.

Economics is complicated. It's pretty much the evil businessmen in black hats, but if they looked at themselves in the mirror, their hats would appear white to themselves. Some prices (especially for things you can buy at ugly big-box flea markets like Walmart) have been kept lower by free trade and cheap foreign labor. Gas prices have gone up because of greed (oil companies amass enormous profits), the rising cost of finding and producing it, and commodity speculation; not to speak of the fact that there's little competition to gas from alternative fuels. Housing has gone up sky high largely because of speculation by real estate brokers and foolish investors. Education is more mysterious; there's greed and too much emphasis on funding research with tuition, as well as retreating public support.

I don't think lowering the cost of living alone is the cure, but I agree that it might be part of the mix. People need to be able to go to school without mortgaging their future, move around without punching holes in their wallet, and hang their hats without having to work into their 80s to pay for their houses. It is a major reason for the extreme wealth inequality in this country. Self-resolution will not solve the problem.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Marx (or is it Lennon?)

If you’re asking about my real name, it’s neither. Just use M&L.

Originally Posted by JG ...

A 4T does not have to change everything about a culture. A society, even a "traditional" one, can maintain substantial cultural continuity while still changing in response to internal and external dynamics.

I don’t see the motivating factor for change in a truly traditional society. All the dynamism will be created by the non-traditional few. The fewer ther are, the less motivation.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Republicans today are not motivated by what works or by what wins elections.

If that's the case the problem will solve itself. But it's not the case, if it were the GOP would not possess the dominant position is still has in state government.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

If that's the case the problem will solve itself. But it's not the case, if it were, the GOP would not possess the dominant position is still has in state government.

I think the people have been deceived enough by free-market ideology and the religious right, that they will vote Republican although it is not in their interest to do so. I think some state GOP officials have some common sense, but I doubt that extends to the legislatures, from what I've heard that they are doing since getting elected in Nov.2010. The Republicans have been elected on the strength of their deception of the people, combined with them being the only electable alternative to Democrats, who aren't doing enough (or can't do enough) to turn around a bad economy. Yes, I think the problem will solve itself, but it will take another decade.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. The answer is both yes and no. The church was certainly authoritarian and hidebound, but the church was not the only actor. There was a dynamic political environment, It's hard to think of that as hidebound. After all, Europe of that period was not a closed system by any means. Even the internal politics were in flux. So politically, no. On the religous front, yes.

If you look at the reference you will see that the Church played a key role in the cultural transformation that began with the Cluny mega-awkening. It was anything but hidebound. Like any institution after a period of dynamic growth, it becomes hidebound. So the Cluniac movement was spent by the end of the 11th century and there was a another episode of monastic reform with St. Bernard and the Cistercians. And this too was spent after a century and you get the medicant mega-awakening, which proposed a novel solution to the problem. The larger church was in no position to provide any sort of reform in the early years of Cluny (10th cent). They cleaned up their act in the next century in time to midwife the legal revolution around 1100, closely followed by the rise of universities. Rapid economic growth in the 12th century vastly increased church wealth and led to instituional bloat and managerial excess, the eventual response to which was the Reformation. So yes, like any very successful instituion, the church became hidebound and needed another round of reform.

I guess I miss your point here. Are you arguing that the only standard of smart v stupid is the direct impact on the holder of the POV?

I think you answere your own question below:

If so, then most of the stupid ideas are held and promoted by very bright people, who systematically off-load the pain on others.

If they are bright people, its hard to see how they are stupid. I think you are equating morality with intelligence in some ways here.

I hope this isn't the case, where self-serving politics is the standard model. That should lead to changes only when they directly benefit the poltical PTB, but for no other reason. The rest of us become "the rabble".

Chameleon politics, if successful, will reduce the parties to red and blue sports teams, and the business of governance will move into the shadows. Real power, in that model, is private. We have far too much of that now.

I think it has always been the case. There are always self-interested men involved in public affairs. There are also public servants.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

19th century presidents were not top elites. President Grant died poor. Top dogs in society were businessmen.

Sorta sounds like you're using modern social values to evaluate who was important in the past. Obviously, merchants will have the most money, warriors will have the most weapons, and intellectuals will have the most degrees, but which one gets you to the presidency? Why weren't the rich businessmen able to get elected as easily back then as they can today?

Also note: right after the streak of veterens ends with Teddy Roosevelt, there's sudden upsurge of presidents who attended elite colleges and earned multiple degrees.

There was no draft for the Mexican War or for the Indian wars or the Spanish War. The one draft imposed generated serious opposition.

Primarily among one relatively isolated group of immigrants who had not really integrated in to American society or saecular moods. The mood of most Americans was much different and the draft rioters did not get a lot of sympathy from outside their own ethnic enclaves.

On the other hand, the Millennial saeculum began with a peacetime draft. The country remained mobilized for war after WW II and has remained mobilized for 70 years. When I was a kid, everyone's Dad had been in the military, some of them in WW II, but a lot, like my Dad, who had done their stint in peacetime. The draft finally ended after Vietnam, but after just a short span, registration was reintroduced (Mine was the last cohort that didn't have to register).

And the Vietnam draft protests were a lot more widespread and earned a lot more sympathy than the draft protesters in the civil war. But from WW2-Vietnam, despite having a lot of people serve, being a veteran wasn't exactly a head start to political leadership or even getting a good job. In fact, it was a huge stigma for a lot of people not that long ago. If you did want to get ahead in society, you had to come back from the fighting and go to college.

When people talk of the American Empire what they are talking about is this war infrastructure. What do you call our forward bases scattered all over the world: army marines naval and air force. What do you call our drone force, our ICBM capability, and our unique airlift capacity? There would have been no European intervention in Libya had American infrastructure not been in place that enabled it.

So is Iraq part of America now? Do the people of Iraq have the same rights and say in our society?

The oldest millennials are 31. Nobody makes their name nowadays in academia by age 31. Can you find examples of films about individual WW II soldiers that were made when they soldiers were still in their 20’s? Movies like zero dark thirty feature individuals who performed service in the War on Terror, because of the nature of this war, they identified cannot be reveals. I would expect some of the seals that killed Bin Laden were probably Millies, but most of the important players in that film are probably Xers, simply because, outside of battlefield heroics, soldiers are usually not in a position to have done much to celebrate when still in their twenties.

Well that's fine.. we can look at lists of famous baby boomers and see the same thing. Where are the veterans? Where are the theoretical physicists? Where are the champions of the common man? All I can find is entertainers and politicians who were good at acquiring wealth and social influence.

And then there is the effect of the war itself. With the exception of the Gulf War (which was too short to generate much in the way of heroes) the US has not engaged in any military actions of which it is proud in my lifetime. People do not celebrate veterans wars that they wish to forget. To celebrate the veteran, you are celebrating the war. Americans would rather forget about Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Did the Germans honor the young men who gave outstanding service to the Nazis?

Exactly.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Why weren't the rich businessmen able to get elected as easily back then as they can today?

They didn't want to, it was considered a step down.

Also note: right after the streak of veterens ends with Teddy Roosevelt, there's sudden upsurge of presidents who attended elite colleges and earned multiple degrees.

Wilson was a Democrat like Cleveland, who also wasn't a veteran. The Bloody shirt was a Republican thing. Taft wasn't a a veteran, but he wasn't a businessman either. The others were post-WW I. WW I showed just how much impact government could have on business. The Presidency ceased to be considered as a job for small men and businessmen did run, if they were so inclined. Since the 1920's all of the Republican presidents have had military service, so this interlude didn't last long.

If you did want to get ahead in society, you had to come back from the fighting and go to college.

Which was paid for if you were a veteran.

So is Iraq part of America now? Do the people of Iraq have the same rights and say in our society?

What does this have to do with infrastructure?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

TD]
It didn’t happen. The saeculum is longer now. That is we cannot just brush the 67-year saecula in the 19^th century under the rug and claim some sort of “Civil War anomaly” cop out. Our model needs to explain the sudden drop from 94 to 67 years AND the rise in length since then. The story model predicts a monotonic change in saeculum length, that is, as cultural exchange density rises (more stories) length falls. The observed pattern does not fit the model. If the data and model do not fit, you discard the model. Put more bluntly, the experiment (i.e. prediction I made in August 2000 that the 4T would start soon) failed. I had thought it was a success when 911 happened 13 months after my prediction of a 4T trigger in the near future. But by 2005 it was clear it just wasn’t so (my confirmatory test stubbornly remained negative—no 4T). And then came 2008 and when I ran the test, it came up positive. I ran a secondary test that did not have to happen but would confirm an actual repeat of exactly what happened in 1929, and damn, if it didn’t come up positive (to my great surprise). That the 4T began in 2008 is about as solid as these things get. So that gives us another data point for saeculum length and now it is obvious the saeculum is getting longer. Models that call for a uni-directional change in length are out.

See, I put the crisis at 2003, with the invasion of Iraq. It's just we're not seeing the solidification or galvanization because we're a dying empire, and that's the story of the saeculum. Remember when you said things hadn't been good where you lived since the late 90's? I think that's the actual truth for most people. I think, however, that we more or less responded collectively, like the guy whose girlfriend broke up with him so he's going and partying to try to repress his bad feelings combined with a people who realized they didn't slug any grain away for winter, so they're running around tearing up the fields trying to find any last seed they can find to eat because it maybe their last.

Both these things look like 3T behaviors: partying and harvesting. However, in truth, they are not. They're hysterical behavior.

As for the jump in the Civil War saeculum, I'd guess that has to do with the massive jump in communications and transportation technolology, the narrative aspect as I stated, all together maybe? I mean, that's all 3 things that speed up progress practically all at once. That particular saeculum broke the mold, and not just in timing.

On a completely nonscientifict trip, I'd also say it's almost a literal deus ex machina, as there's no way the US could have beaten the Axis powers in a 3T, which they would have been in had we not skipped a beat. So I dunno, anything funny going on in US European relations then?

Originally Posted by Kepi

See, I put the crisis at 2003, with the invasion of Iraq.

I don't believe you can identify turning points by inspection. If you could the cycle would have be identified long before S&H. You can identify candidates by inspection (e.g. 2001) but you need confirmation by auxilliary information, the dating of which is not subjective.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

The past is a fiction, the future is a story yet untold, and thus the present is the only "reality".

~Chas'88

!


Prince

PS:
"There's only us. There's only this.
Forget regret...or Life is yours to miss.
No other road. No other way.
No day, but Today!"x9!

Originally Posted by Kepi

On a completely nonscientific trip, I'd also say it's almost a literal deus ex machina, as there's no way the US could have beaten the Axis powers in a 3T, which they would have been in had we not skipped a beat. So I dunno, anything funny going on in US European relations then?

There would not have been a WW II if the saeculum had not shortened. WW II was essentially a replay of WW I because the winner of WW I (the US) refused to take on the role of global leader after the war and instead retreated into isolationism. It's really simple, if you are isolationist then don't get involved in WW I in the first place. If you do get involved then follow through.

What the US did was idiotic, but entirely understandable in terms of domestic politics. After WW I was a new era in which the international system was driven by the domestic politics-based foreign policy of America, which followed a different cycle (the short saeculum) instead of the old K-cycle driven leadership cycle. Since the US did become hegemon, it exported its timing to rest of the world and the K-cycle is now 70-80 years long instead of 50-60. What Modelski calls periods of global war now occur in 3T's, (most recent was the end of the Cold War) which means they are no longer all-out fight-to-the-death things (which is a good thing in an age of Nukes). 4Ts on the international scene will now look more like the 19th century 4T, relatively peaceful internally but containing intenral conflict . This is in that document I sent you.

I don't expect a American to be involed in a major war this 4T, but if one happens it would probably be a civil war. I do expect America's globe-girdling military presence ot be scaled back substantially during this 4T, as Nomads, do the cold, hard, cost/benefit analysis and conclude it's just not worth it.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

There would not have been a WW II if the saeculum had not shortened. WW II was essentially a replay of WW I because the winner of WW I (the US) refused to take on the role of global leader after the war and instead retreated into isolationism. It's really simple, if you are isolationist then don't get involved in WW I in the first place. If you do get involvement then follow through.

What the US did was idiotic, but entirely understandable in terms of domestic politics. After WW I was a new era in which the international system was driven by the domestic politics-based foreign policy of America, which followed a different cycle (the short saeculum) instead of the old K-cycle driven leadership cycle. Since the US did become hegemon, it exported its timing to rest of the world and K-cycle now are 80 years long instead of 50-60 in alignment with the 80-year saeculum. What Modelski calls periods of global war now occur in 3T's, WW I, end of the Cold War which means they are no longer all-out fight to the death things (which is a good thing in an age of Nukes). 4Ts on the international scene will now look like the 19th century 4T, relatively peaceful--if internal conflict is avoided. This is in that document I sent you.

Mike, I hate to disagree with you, but I must here. WWI was not "won" by the United States by any means. We were tag-a longs that fought in about a handful of battles in the last month or two of the war and barely contributed anything to the effort beyond supplying France and Britain.

Had the Zimmerman telegram not come to light, the US still would've remained in that position of "armed neutrality" for the remainder of the war. Sure, the Lusitania was sunk, but that wasn't enough to get the US into a war. The Zimmerman telegram was, and had that not come to light, the US still would've been putzing around Mexico trying to find Pancho Villa for the Columbus raid and probably getting into more of a squabble with Mexico in general.

Britain and France won WWI--most especially Britain. Sure, we provided vital help, but we were junior partners in the adventure.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Mike, I hate to disagree with you, but I must here. WWI was not "won" by the United States by any means.

America was part of the coalition that won the war; this gives three winners. Of those three which one emerged on top?

Did the City of London remain the center of world finance? No, after the war New York emerged at the top, making the US number one in finance. The US already had the largest economy.

With money comes power. In 1920 the US possessed 39% of the capital ships held by the great powers. By the end of WW II this figure would rise to 49% and by the begining of Vietnam it would reach its pre-1990 peak of 77% (Modelski and Thompson's data set ends in 1990). Compare to previous British peaks of 51% in 1720 and 58% in 1820. In those hegemonic conflicts Britain was the winner, even though she was part of a coalition. America did the same in WW I.

Winning does not refer to who contributes the most. If that were the case France was the winner in WW I just as she was the winner of the War of the American Revolution.

But rated on who gained the most from the war's successful conclusion, the answer is the US in both cases. When it comes to motivations who emerges on top is a more useful definition of biggest winner than who contributed the most.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Mike, I hate to disagree with you, but I must here. WWI was not "won" by the United States by any means. We were tag-a longs that fought in about a handful of battles in the last month or two of the war and barely contributed anything to the effort beyond supplying France and Britain.

Had the Zimmerman telegram not come to light, the US still would've remained in that position of "armed neutrality" for the remainder of the war. Sure, the Lusitania was sunk, but that wasn't enough to get the US into a war. The Zimmerman telegram was, and had that not come to light, the US still would've been putzing around Mexico trying to find Pancho Villa for the Columbus raid and probably getting into more of a squabble with Mexico in general.

Britain and France won WWII--most especially Britain. Sure, we provided vital help, but we were junior partners in the adventure.

~Chas'88

I agree. From a European perspective, it was about the consequences of Germany really taking over as the lead nation of Europe, and the fallout from that. The United States involvement in World War I was tangental, but when you look at both wars as a packaged whole, it reinforces the values of the Napoleonic Wars, specifically the value of screwing over Russia, which apparently is of paramount importance. It really is one long continuous story spanning three Saecula and it is about who deserves to rule the economic core of the world (in this saeculum, we have the US wearing the crown, the establishment of the UN, and the establishment of the EU).

Had the UN entered WWI in a 2T we would have turned it into a brutal and long, long conflict and we'd have probably gotten punted in the 4T by someone like the Nazis.

Mikebert is right about who won the wars. The world wars were the collapse and fall of the 500-year old European colonial and great-power system that had ruled the world. Europe as the world's power center fell. What replaced it has been successor powers (such as the USA, China, Japan, Russia, Brazil, India, arguably even the EU) in a developing global system. The League of Nations and the UN that emerged from the world wars are the start of a world-governing body. This is a new age that will last another 400 years before the next civilization crisis begins.

I guess it takes boomers today to have a correct historical perspective.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I guess it takes boomers today to have a correct historical perspective.

Sorry, you guys were raised on a strict and limited diet of propaganda. The idea that America in any way "won" WW1 is not a common or popular historical opinion.