Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Glenn Beck is talking about the Kondratiev Wave as I type this, describing it in terms of economic "seasons" -- winter, spring, summer, fall. The "winter", according to Beck, is the "window of opportunity" for progressives, fascists, socialists, etc. to overturn the system and impose dictatorship. These notions have obviously caught on among Tea Partiers, conservatives, libertarians, whatever you want to call them.

Yet at the same time, Beck & Co. seek a return to the economic policies we embraced during economic September - that is to say, straddling the late summer and early fall (where we were in the 1980s).

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Yet at the same time, Beck & Co. seek a return to the economic policies we embraced during economic September - that is to say, straddling the late summer and early fall (where we were in the 1980s).

What exactly are September policies that won't work now?

Originally Posted by Theodore Roosevelt

What exactly are September policies that won't work now?

The 1980s would be Reagan, the beginning of the unraveling Republican Borrow and Spend era. They wouldn't work know as Borrow and Spend creates a huge debt which discourages further Borrow and Spend.

Alas, the panic at the end of the Bush 43 administration forced another dose.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

The 1980s would be Reagan, the beginning of the unraveling Republican Borrow and Spend era. They wouldn't work know as Borrow and Spend creates a huge debt which discourages further Borrow and Spend.

Alas, the panic at the end of the Bush 43 administration forced another dose.

I understand that the GOP is the party of borrow and spend, whereas the Dems are the party of tax and spend. I don't keep up with Beck a whole lot, but I was under the impression that he was the type that would like to CUT spending. If I understand the Crisis mood, this is the decade in which government services will be cut - either by choice or by circumstance.

Originally Posted by Theodore Roosevelt

I understand that the GOP is the party of borrow and spend, whereas the Dems are the party of tax and spend. I don't keep up with Beck a whole lot, but I was under the impression that he was the type that would like to CUT spending. If I understand the Crisis mood, this is the decade in which government services will be cut - either by choice or by circumstance.

The Democrats were the party of tax and spend, from FDR through LBJ with perhaps some leakage into Carter. They were also the party of Keynes, ready to deficit spend in trouble time, pay of the debt in good times. The Republicans in this era were Tax and Spend, but leaned towards guns rather than butter. They were less enthused about Keynes generally, preferring to avoid tax and spend in favor of pay as you go. That was a time when Republican fiscal theory was indeed conservative.

The above pattern held pretty true for the last Fourth, First and Second turning. This is a long enough a time that the perception is that it is still true. People still think of the Republicans as conservative fiscally, the Democrats tax and spenders.

I see there as being a radical shift in both parties with the Unraveling. Reagan began Voodoo Economics, with trickle down hopes that helping the rich would help the poor and that cutting the tax rates would increase tax receipts. Neither theory has stood the test of time, but the general public still expects the free lunch, that the government can continue cutting taxes while providing services. Voodoo economics is a radical departure from the truly conservative policies of the pre unraveling Republicans.

Meanwhile, Clinton did more cutting of Great Society era programs than Reagan, and did quite bit of Peace Dividend cutting of military budgets as well. Republicans continue to cry 'tax and spend' whenever Democrats attempt to provide service to the people, but it is not clear to me at all that the Republicans have been the party of fiscal responsibility. Neither party seems to be following the old policies of the 1930s through 1960s.

I don't follow Beck at all. From all I've heard he is another partisan Republican. I'd expect him to spin history very differently. I'd expect him to continue to promote tax cuts, support the wealthy getting wealthier, while fighting the government's ability to provide domestic services.

But I can't go into details on his recent spin on things.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

The Democrats were the party of tax and spend, from FDR through LBJ with perhaps some leakage into Carter. They were also the party of Keynes, ready to deficit spend in trouble time, pay of the debt in good times. The Republicans in this era were Tax and Spend, but leaned towards guns rather than butter. They were less enthused about Keynes generally, preferring to avoid tax and spend in favor of pay as you go. That was a time when Republican fiscal theory was indeed conservative.

The above pattern held pretty true for the last Fourth, First and Second turning. This is a long enough a time that the perception is that it is still true. People still think of the Republicans as conservative fiscally, the Democrats tax and spenders.

I see there as being a radical shift in both parties with the Unraveling. Reagan began Voodoo Economics, with trickle down hopes that helping the rich would help the poor and that cutting the tax rates would increase tax receipts. Neither theory has stood the test of time, but the general public still expects the free lunch, that the government can continue cutting taxes while providing services. Voodoo economics is a radical departure from the truly conservative policies of the pre unraveling Republicans.

Meanwhile, Clinton did more cutting of Great Society era programs than Reagan, and did quite bit of Peace Dividend cutting of military budgets as well. Republicans continue to cry 'tax and spend' whenever Democrats attempt to provide service to the people, but it is not clear to me at all that the Republicans have been the party of fiscal responsibility. Neither party seems to be following the old policies of the 1930s through 1960s.

I don't follow Beck at all. From all I've heard he is another partisan Republican. I'd expect him to spin history very differently. I'd expect him to continue to promote tax cuts, support the wealthy getting wealthier, while fighting the government's ability to provide domestic services.

But I can't go into details on his recent spin on things.

BB: I strongly recommend that you listen to his speech at the recent CPAC Comvention. It's pretty much his normal MO. FWIW,You might be suprised by what you hear.
Of course, he's an entertainer so it wouldn't be prudent to follow HIM, but the WORDS and CONCEPTS really speak to my Xer Generation. You may get a window into us:
http://www.youtube.com/v/gkhdMwQQ1fQ&hl=en_US&fs=1

Sincerely PoC67

Last night I attended, along with my wife, son, and four guests, the NYC premiere of Generation Zero. It was not one of my favorite evenings.

Steve Bannen, the filmmaker, recruited me as an interviewee on the grounds that he was producing a non-partisan introduction to the generational theory and a look at the excesses of the Boom generation and their effects. You will all understand that I could not resist.

Now I have no complaints about the parts of my interview that he put in the film (although he seemed to prefer using my voice to using all of me) and I am not in the least ashamed of anything I said. Neil Howe's comments were also informative and non-partisan and did not favor any particular outcome for the 4T. (One thing that really surprised me was the lack of attention to the question of a future war. In the interview Bannen practically begged me to predict a huge conflict, and I assume he did the same with Neil, but there was nothing like that in the film.) There was also a good deal of good economic discussion on the origins of the crisis, Wall Street irresponsibility, etc.

On the other hand, about 1/3 of the film, I would say, was extreme conservative agitprop. The lowlights were:

1. An explanation of how the New Deal actually did nothing to get us out of the Depression (without even the customary mention that the war did do so.)

2. An extensive rehash, led by black conservative Shelby Steele, of the ridiculous lie that the subprime crisis was triggered by a Carter-Clinton policy of encouraging home ownership by minorities, which every sane person knows was an absolutely trivial part of what went on.

3. No mention of the repeal of Glass-Steagall as a cause of our problems, and several statements to the effect that a lack of regulation was not the problem. (The conservative line now is that the problem is that government always bails everyone out.)

4. While there was a great deal of discussion of the economic excesses of the decade that just ended, virtually nothing was said about George W. Bush while a lot of specific responsibility was given to Clinton and his team (not that they don't deserve it too.)

5. The film ended with great praise for the tea party and some very inflammatory shots of the President, Pelosi, Barney Frank, and the rest of the usual conservative suspects.

6. To judge from the film, Citizens United, which backed it, is promoting Newt Gingrich for President. He got a lot of air time, was never called to account for any role he might have in all this, and was essentially the only present or former elected official to be interviewed.

There were two broader flaws.

The filmmaking style was both emotional and weird, relying largely on endlessly repeated images of cartoons, shots from 1950s family dramas, and sharks. (There were long sequences of sharks.) The music was both overpowering (sometimes you couldn't hear the voice over) and consistently inflammatory.

Secondly, there were really no concrete suggestions about what should be done.

In the introduction to the film one of the producers mentioned, in apocalyptic tones, that the health care bill had been signed today. I, being me, began clapping, and two or three people (not all from my group) joined in.

It is not clear whether the movie will get theatrical release or not. It is self-consciously pitching itself as an answer to Michael Moore's Capitalism, A Love Story. It's rather fascinating that that movie begins the same way: with a panegyric to the 1950s. I'm not going to speculate about how the final product emerged from the process. I still think Steve Bannen is a smart guy who understands the theory. But I don't think the film will contribute to a good resolution of the crisis.

@ KaiserD2

Propaganda (both L & R extremes) is never a good medium for any theory to make an appearance--for then it becomes hard to separate the theory from the overly emotionalized hype. Unfortunately what else do you expect out of a Crisis period?

It sounds to me that what you saw in this film was this saeculum's equivalent of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m1VsFOUePw

Who was it on this board that said propaganda wouldn't make a return in this 4Ting? I think they were just prooven wrong.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Last night I attended, along with my wife, son, and four guests, the NYC premiere of Generation Zero. It was not one of my favorite evenings.

Steve Bannen, the filmmaker, recruited me as an interviewee on the grounds that he was producing a non-partisan introduction to the generational theory and a look at the excesses of the Boom generation and their effects. You will all understand that I could not resist.

Now I have no complaints about the parts of my interview that he put in the film (although he seemed to prefer using my voice to using all of me) and I am not in the least ashamed of anything I said. Neil Howe's comments were also informative and non-partisan and did not favor any particular outcome for the 4T. (One thing that really surprised me was the lack of attention to the question of a future war. In the interview Bannen practically begged me to predict a huge conflict, and I assume he did the same with Neil, but there was nothing like that in the film.) There was also a good deal of good economic discussion on the origins of the crisis, Wall Street irresponsibility, etc.

So far, so good. Of course I am not convinced that this 4T will have a major war as its center. Avoidance of a major war may be the feature of this Crisis. It's worth remembering that the great horrors of the last Crisis have been burned into the consciousnesses of people (Boomer, Generation X, and Millennial alike) who could never have first-hand knowledge of the last Crisis at its worst, most infamously the Holocaust.

I could make the case that this Crisis will be muted because of the preserved memories of the last one. I could also make the case that things will go very bad very fast irrespective of people's shared beliefs.

On the other hand, about 1/3 of the film, I would say, was extreme conservative agitprop. The lowlights were:

1. An explanation of how the New Deal actually did nothing to get us out of the Depression (without even the customary mention that the war did do so.)

2. An extensive rehash, led by black conservative Shelby Steele, of the ridiculous lie that the subprime crisis was triggered by a Carter-Clinton policy of encouraging home ownership by minorities, which every sane person knows was an absolutely trivial part of what went on.

3. No mention of the repeal of Glass-Steagall as a cause of our problems, and several statements to the effect that a lack of regulation was not the problem. (The conservative line now is that the problem is that government always bails everyone out.)

4. While there was a great deal of discussion of the economic excesses of the decade that just ended, virtually nothing was said about George W. Bush while a lot of specific responsibility was given to Clinton and his team (not that they don't deserve it too.)

5. The film ended with great praise for the tea party and some very inflammatory shots of the President, Pelosi, Barney Frank, and the rest of the usual conservative suspects.

6. To judge from the film, Citizens United, which backed it, is promoting Newt Gingrich for President. He got a lot of air time, was never called to account for any role he might have in all this, and was essentially the only present or former elected official to be interviewed.

It is hard to imagine that anyone could see that the every-man-for-himself, Devil-take-the-hindmost, get-what-you-can-while-you-can 3T could result in anything other than an unjust, corrupt, unsustainable way of life -- one that creates not only economic failure but also severe resentments. People would come to hate even the mass low culture offered as compensation, and especially people seen to be living high on the hog while the masses scrap for the scraps.

A 4T is an era of great sacrifices because people are prepared to make them for lack of viable alternatives. An attempt to preserve a 3T would create only a feudal nightmare of hereditary hierarchy enforced with (to paraphrase Churchill) the 'tools of a perverse science'. History has 4Ts because it needs them, and not because people like witch-hunts, purges, and apocalyptic war.

In any event, if I were making the film I would make much of the ambiguity of consequences except of the debased culture, politics, and business practices of a 3T. I would have shown goings-on at Studio 54, including the cocaine craze. I would have used 2Live Crew and the intellectual emptiness of Spice Girls as examples of the vileness or emptiness of 3T culture. I would have also shown the contemptible deeds at Enron Corporation and the buddy-buddy relationship between Kenneth Lay and George W. Bush, and the questionable behavior associated with the election of George W. Bush. With 3T televangelists and priest-abuse of children I could show that even religion could be corrupt (with clear contrast to the likes of Billy Graham and Fulton Sheen, 1T figures). I would cut from 9/11 horrors to President Bush telling people to "go shopping" to demonstrate that a true Crisis response would be quite different. FDR did not tell people to buy up what they could and hoard things -- quite the opposite.

I would have compared George W. Bush to the likes of the unmemorable leaders of America of the 1850s and 1920s, and of course the weak figures of colonial America in the 1760s. Things were going bad; some people got rich; some people had fun. In the end the easy money for a few vanished and the fun came to an end when people could no longer buy the fun. Could anyone confuse our 43rd President with out 16th or 32nd?

I could spend the whole night bashing Bush, but I would show some of the great 4T leaders, even non-Americans, as examples: Frederick the Great, Bismarck, Garibaldi, Juarez, Churchill, Gandhi... Above all else, a 4T will redefine even the political language. Such a term as conservatism will mean something very different in a 4T (defense of a wholesome society from dangerous experiments and rival philosophies) from what it meant in a 3T (defense of entrenched privilege and myopic hedonism).

There were two broader flaws.

The filmmaking style was both emotional and weird, relying largely on endlessly repeated images of cartoons, shots from 1950s family dramas, and sharks. (There were long sequences of sharks.) The music was both overpowering (sometimes you couldn't hear the voice over) and consistently inflammatory.

I didn't see it. It wouldn't take much of Leave it to Beaver or Father Knows Bestto show the 1T ideal. Sharks? Sharks are over-rated as dangers to humans. I'd use something more ambiguous -- a large, barking dog that projects either reassurance or consummate danger -- as befits a 4T. I don't know what music was used for the 4T, but if I had to choose, I would pick the fourth movement of the first symphony of Gustav Mahler, the final chord culminating with the demolition of a giant swastika at a stadium in Nuremberg.

But I am no film-maker, so what would I know?

Secondly, there were really no concrete suggestions about what should be done.

In the introduction to the film one of the producers mentioned, in apocalyptic tones, that the health care bill had been signed today. I, being me, began clapping, and two or three people (not all from my group) joined in.

We Americans take the first baby step to doing what dozens of countries have done in one way or another. Such is not apocalypse. Of course I can imagine people in the Confederacy being appalled that Abraham Lincoln had ordered the emancipation of the slaves because such would destroy their "glorious" way of life based on people being worked without being paid. American workers have been getting the shaft in almost every possible respect, and the only ways in which life is better in 2010 than in 1970 are that we have better technologies in entertainment and medicine. Around 2005 I thought that America could be headed toward a proletarian revolution as bloody as that of Russia circa 1920 or to full-blown fascism around the year 2015. President Obama has pushed either off at least ten years so far, and if he is really successful as President, he can push those off for another eighty.

It is not clear whether the movie will get theatrical release or not. It is self-consciously pitching itself as an answer to Michael Moore's Capitalism, A Love Story. It's rather fascinating that that movie begins the same way: with a panegyric to the 1950s. I'm not going to speculate about how the final product emerged from the process. I still think Steve Bannen is a smart guy who understands the theory.

So far as I can tell, a 4T has no respect for partisan politics, entrenched elites (especially those that take much and give little in return), and the egos of leaders. It would be just as premature to lionize President Obama as to excoriate him. In 1940 and 1941 many believed that it would be British and Jewish leaders who would dangle at the ends of ropes for crimes against the "inevitable" tide of history.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

So far, so good. Of course I am not convinced that this 4T will have a major war as its center. Avoidance of a major war may be the feature of this Crisis. It's worth remembering that the great horrors of the last Crisis have been burned into the consciousnesses of people (Boomer, Generation X, and Millennial alike) who could never have first-hand knowledge of the last Crisis at its worst, most infamously the Holocaust.

I could make the case that this Crisis will be muted because of the preserved memories of the last one. I could also make the case that things will go very bad very fast irrespective of people's shared beliefs.

Obviously I hope for the former.

It is hard to imagine that anyone could see that the every-man-for-himself, Devil-take-the-hindmost, get-what-you-can-while-you-can 3T could result in anything other than an unjust, corrupt, unsustainable way of life -- one that creates not only economic failure but also severe resentments. People would come to hate even the mass low culture offered as compensation, and especially people seen to be living high on the hog while the masses scrap for the scraps.

Powerful words and mostly true.

A 4T is an era of great sacrifices because people are prepared to make them for lack of viable alternatives. An attempt to preserve a 3T would create only a feudal nightmare of hereditary hierarchy enforced with (to paraphrase Churchill) the 'tools of a perverse science'. History has 4Ts because it needs them, and not because people like witch-hunts, purges, and apocalyptic war.

In any event, if I were making the film I would make much of the ambiguity of consequences except of the debased culture, politics, and business practices of a 3T. I would have shown goings-on at Studio 54, including the cocaine craze. I would have used 2Live Crew and the intellectual emptiness of Spice Girls as examples of the vileness or emptiness of 3T culture. I would have also shown the contemptible deeds at Enron Corporation and the buddy-buddy relationship between Kenneth Lay and George W. Bush, and the questionable behavior associated with the election of George W. Bush. With 3T televangelists and priest-abuse of children I could show that even religion could be corrupt (with clear contrast to the likes of Billy Graham and Fulton Sheen, 1T figures). I would cut from 9/11 horrors to President Bush telling people to "go shopping" to demonstrate that a true Crisis response would be quite different. FDR did not tell people to buy up what they could and hoard things -- quite the opposite.

I would have compared George W. Bush to the likes of the unmemorable leaders of America of the 1850s and 1920s, and of course the weak figures of colonial America in the 1760s. Things were going bad; some people got rich; some people had fun. In the end the easy money for a few vanished and the fun came to an end when people could no longer buy the fun. Could anyone confuse our 43rd President with out 16th or 32nd?

I could spend the whole night bashing Bush,

As someone who initially thought 9/11 was the 4T beginning, I also was disgusted with the "go shopping" line. However, as someone who voted for Clinton the first time and Bush twice, I can tell you that Clinton's antics in the Oval Office were disgusting and were the primary reason Bush was elected. It was all so 3T. I am sure I would have put Clinton in the movie with his "I did not have sex with that woman" moment.

but I would show some of the great 4T leaders, even non-Americans, as examples: Frederick the Great, Bismarck, Garibaldi, Juarez, Churchill, Gandhi... Above all else, a 4T will redefine even the political language. Such a term as conservatism will mean something very different in a 4T (defense of a wholesome society from dangerous experiments and rival philosophies) from what it meant in a 3T (defense of entrenched privilege and myopic hedonism).

Your last sentence is very insightful. As some with a natural predisposition to conservatism, I feel like there is no one that speaks for me anymore. I hate the banks and what they have done to our economy. I hate the hedonism of dynastic levels of wealth that were essentially handed to a group of people by government policies. If this is the free market, I am Santa Claus. Your first definition captures my desires.

I didn't see it. It wouldn't take much of Leave it to Beaver or Father Knows Bestto show the 1T ideal. Sharks? Sharks are over-rated as dangers to humans. I'd use something more ambiguous -- a large, barking dog that projects either reassurance or consummate danger -- as befits a 4T. I don't know what music was used for the 4T, but if I had to choose, I would pick the fourth movement of the first symphony of Gustav Mahler, the final chord culminating with the demolition of a giant swastika at a stadium in Nuremberg.

But I am no film-maker, so what would I know?

We Americans take the first baby step to doing what dozens of countries have done in one way or another. Such is not apocalypse. Of course I can imagine people in the Confederacy being appalled that Abraham Lincoln had ordered the emancipation of the slaves because such would destroy their "glorious" way of life based on people being worked without being paid. American workers have been getting the shaft in almost every possible respect, and the only ways in which life is better in 2010 than in 1970 are that we have better technologies in entertainment and medicine. Around 2005 I thought that America could be headed toward a proletarian revolution as bloody as that of Russia circa 1920 or to full-blown fascism around the year 2015. President Obama has pushed either off at least ten years so far, and if he is really successful as President, he can push those off for another eighty.

So far as I can tell, a 4T has no respect for partisan politics, entrenched elites (especially those that take much and give little in return), and the egos of leaders. It would be just as premature to lionize President Obama as to excoriate him. In 1940 and 1941 many believed that it would be British and Jewish leaders who would dangle at the ends of ropes for crimes against the "inevitable" tide of history.

As long as we are talking about visual media, I have to share one impression that has been growing lately. I voted for Obama, but there is a budding creepiness about his demeanor that bothers me. Its in those moments when he gets to an applause line. When the audience erupts in approval, he looks up from the teleprompter and puts his chin in the air. I swear it looks like those old movie reels of Mussolini. If I ever see him cross his arms over his chest, it will complete the impression.

Its probably my inherent distrust of all leaders, but that is what I see. All recent presidents were over-exposed. Long before the end of their terms, I got to the point where I just couldn't watch them. I even got there with Reagan who was the master of the controlled image. I think I have already gotten there with Obama. I can make a list of the things he is doing right, but I don't want to watch him anymore.

Overall, your post was the best of the week, IMHO. Nice work.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Obviously I hope for the former.



As someone who initially thought 9/11 was the 4T beginning, I also was disgusted with the "go shopping" line. However, as someone who voted for Clinton the first time and Bush twice, I can tell you that Clinton's antics in the Oval Office were disgusting and were the primary reason Bush was elected. It was all so 3T. I am sure I would have put Clinton in the movie with his "I did not have sex with that woman" moment.

Indeed, Bill Clinton's sexcapades were disgusting. To be sure, I thought that the Right expanded their significance (awkward phrasing, but that avoids a sexual pun that I have no desire to use) far out of proportion. A 3T is the time in which the stock phrase "none of your business" applies most to private sexuality between consenting adults, but it is also the time in which celebrities of any kind have the least privacy. It would have better for everyone (beginning with Al Gore as President, which might have spared us some of the ill consequences of the latter part of the 3T) had Bill Clinton not been such an alley cat on sexuality, but nonetheless, we would have been better off if he had gotten nothing more than a "tsk, tsk" response instead of a prurient exposure.

Then again there was Anita Hill exposing some odd proclivities of Clarence Thomas...

As some with a natural predisposition to conservatism, I feel like there is no one that speaks for me anymore. I hate the banks and what they have done to our economy. I hate the hedonism of dynastic levels of wealth that were essentially handed to a group of people by government policies. If this is the free market, I am Santa Claus. Your first definition captures my desires.

Without something worthy of defense, conservatism is an ideology for swine. Crony capitalism which we have gotten by default is completely indefensible, and the one good thing about this 4T is that Communism is dead as a dynamic ideology. The two great events of the 3T were

(1) the demise of the Soviet political structure and of Commie regimes in central and southeastern Europe, and

(2) the all-but-formal abandonment of Marxism-Leninist and Maoist principles in the People's Republic of China.

Such (and the fall of Apartheid in South Africa, and the overthrow of some nasty dictatorships in South America) are manifestations of libertarian trends in a 3T and not violent 4T uprisings and revolutions. Those deserve attention in the film, at the least as suggestions that this 4T might not be so nasty as the previous one.

As long as we are talking about visual media, I have to share one impression that has been growing lately. I voted for Obama, but there is a budding creepiness about his demeanor that bothers me. Its in those moments when he gets to an applause line. When the audience erupts in approval, he looks up from the teleprompter and puts his chin in the air. I swear it looks like those old movie reels of Mussolini. If I ever see him cross his arms over his chest, it will complete the impression.

Sarah Palin scares me more with her incendiary rhetoric and "Who, me?" expressions.

That said, I am surprised that tea party demonstrators don't draw attention to that. I don't pay much attention to mannerisms of political leaders unless those mannerisms are violent or excessively theatrical. A leader who flails his arms about, has frequent allusions to weapons, or pounds his fist scares me. The Mussolini-like head bob could be mere coincidence; after all, if you follow Howe and Strauss' divisions between the last two Idealist and Reactive generations (1882-1883 and 1960-1961), such a mannerism could be part of the package. Both Mussolini and Obama were born in the first years of Reactive generations, which may also be coincidence.

So far the GOP has tried to isolate him politically while trying to draw away some Democrats on specific issues, as if they thought him too dangerous to be worthy of cooperation. It's worth noting that early in his political career Benito Mussolini snookered such people as Vladimir Lenin (who saw the revolutionary violence but not the reactionary tendencies), Sigmund Freud (who, if anyone, should have seen through him!), and Cole Porter's "You're the Top!" in Anything Goes has a version in which the lines

You're the Top/ You're Mussolini

appear. People saw the impressive monuments to his ideology (as if he were the new Caesar) and ignored a the degradation of civil liberties, his brutal treatment of a native insurgency in Libya, the mounting corruption, and a couple of assassinations of opponents... and not until he invaded Ethiopia and aligned himself with Der Phooey did his image get tarnished. That took over a decade.

Its probably my inherent distrust of all leaders, but that is what I see. All recent presidents were over-exposed. Long before the end of their terms, I got to the point where I just couldn't watch them. I even got there with Reagan who was the master of the controlled image. I think I have already gotten there with Obama. I can make a list of the things he is doing right, but I don't want to watch him anymore.

Any leader can conceivably go wrong. If President Obama becomes should go bad we would see it in gestures far more egregious than a head bob, like a clenched fist, failing arms, or pounding a podium -- or any semblance of a cult of personality then we may be getting someone dangerous in history. If we see semi-divine images with over-simplified praise in short stock phrases on billboards, then watch out! I saw that with George W. Bush on billboards in 2004, and those scared me. Fidel Castro did that in Cuba.

No third term, please.

Dear David,

It was a great pleasure to finally meet you and your wife after all
these years at the NYC premiere of Generation Zero.

I'd like to respond to your criticisms by presenting a defense of
Generation Zero. I believe that the movie got pretty much got
everything right, and I'd like to present my reasons why I believe
that.

At the top, I agree that the movie gave the appearance of being too
one-sided politically. When the movie described problems that were
occurring in the 1990s, there was always video of President Clinton on
the screen, but there was rarely any presidential video when it
described events in the 2000s. I found myself occasionally asking
myself, "Gee, I wonder who was president when all this was going on?"

Having said that, let me address some of your other criticisms.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

> 1. An explanation of how the New Deal actually did nothing to get
> us out of the Depression (without even the customary mention that
> the war did do so.)

> 2. An extensive rehash, led by black conservative Shelby Steele,
> of the ridiculous lie that the subprime crisis was triggered by a
> Carter-Clinton policy of encouraging home ownership by minorities,
> which every sane person knows was an absolutely trivial part of
> what went on.

> 3. No mention of the repeal of Glass-Steagall as a cause of our
> problems, and several statements to the effect that a lack of
> regulation was not the problem. (The conservative line now is that
> the problem is that government always bails everyone out.)

> ...

And let me say that I don't want to put words into Steve Bannon's
mouth, but as far as I know, he pretty much agrees with what I'm going
to write here. He and I spoke for many hours on the phone prior to
and during the filming, about the Fourth Turning and about
Generational Dynamics, and the movie pretty much follows the concepts
that we discussed.

First, the movie did not explain the role of the New Deal getting us
out of the Depression because the New Deal had absolutely nothing to
do with getting us out of the Depression. Neither did WW II, for that
matter. The New Deal can be thought of as a stimulus program, and WW
II can be thought of as an even larger stimulus program, but no
stimulus program can affect the huge generational waves that caused
the Depression. All that a stimulus program can do is provide
temporary spot relief to selected people.

The main feature of today's worldwide financial system is hundreds of
trillions of dollars (nominal value) of credit default swaps in
portfolios of institutions around the world. This is approaching the
staggering value of one quadrillion dollars. A trillion or two
dollars of stimulus money is totally irrelevant when compared to that
-- just as a teaspoon of water is irrelevant to the ocean.

These CDSs are sitting in portfolios, without anyone even thinking
about them, until they explode because some corporation or country
defaults. And since these CDSs are highly correlated, one explosion
can set off an entire chain reaction of explosions, resulting in
trillions or tens of trillions of dollars of destroyed assets. Once
again, a trillion or two of stimulus money is irrelevant.

This is all consistent with Strauss and Howe's generational theory, in
which the great events that they describe are not caused at all by
politicians. In fact, I posted a challenge on this web site several
years ago, asking anyone to find even a single place in "Generations"
or "The Fourth Turning" where S&H claim that politics events caused
the great turning events, and no one has ever met that challenge. I'm
tempted to say that politics is irrelevant to generational theory but
that isn't true. What IS true is there's only one direction of
causation. Generational trends cause political events, not
vice-versa.

Having said that, I'll repeat that I think you have a fair complaint
that the movie tends to blame the Democrats more than the Republicans.
If politicians do not cause generational events, then no politicians
should be blamed.

However, while I'll agree that the movie presents an unfair
perception, there's actually a generational defense that the Democrats
are, if not "to blame" for the financial crisis, at least the
principle actors in the financial crisis.

One of the concepts that Steve left out of the movie (for lack of
time) was the role of Generation-Xers in the financial crisis. The
movie focuses exclusively on the Boomers, but in fact the financial
crisis could not have been caused by the Boomers, because everyone
agrees that the Boomers are too dumb to have devised those brilliant
structured securities that turned into toxic assets, and are also too
dumb to have figured out how to defraud investors by convincing them
to buy them.

The question that I keep focusing on on my web site is this: How is it
possible that so many crimes were committed by so many people in so
many different companies, and everyone looked the other way? How is
that even possible? It must be generational, because it would not
have happened prior to the late 1990s, after the Silent generation had
disappeared. The only way that it could have happened is if
Generation-Xers created the toxic assets and perpetrated the fraud,
and if they received the full support of their Boomer managers who are
totally incompetent as managers and leaders. I refer to it on my web
site as the lethal combination of greedy, nihilistic Gen-Xers, managed
and enabled by greedy, incompetent Boomers. Neither generation could
have done it alone; they had to be working together. But the Gen-Xers
were "active," while the Boomers were "passive."

Translating that into politics, the "Boomer counterculture" of the
1960s has been adopted by the Democrats, and the "Silent culture" of
the 1940s has been adopted by the Republicans. In perpetrating the
crimes of the financial crisis, the Democrats were the "active"
perpetrators, and the Republicans were the "passive" enablers. Both
parties are equally greedy and equally guilty, but their roles were
different.

Repeal of the Glass-Steagall law in 1999 could not possibly have
caused the financial crisis, since the dot-com bubble and the
worldwide real estate bubble were already in full swing at that time,
and Fannie and Freddie were already deep into fraudulent securities
and obscene bonuses. If I were to pick laws that "caused" the
financial crisis, I would pick the fair housing and fair lending laws,
championed by Democrats, that put poor people, black people, women and
children into homes that they couldn't afford. The Democrats wouldn't
hesitate to take full credit for those laws, but now that those laws
have fucked over those same poor people, black people, women and
children, it's only fair that they get the blame. But of course, the
Republicans were just as guilty, since they shared in the benefits.
But the Democrats were "active," while the Republicans were "passive."

Finally -- and this is perhaps the most important point -- history is
still "unfolding" on this subject. We're still headed for a huge
deflationary financial crisis that will be far worse than the Great
Depression. That's why the movie presented no "solutions" -- since no
solutions exist. And I don't know what Steve is planning for the
sequence, but I'm sure it will be about a world that will come after
this real crisis begins.

For that reason, "Generation Zero" is very true to generational theory
as developed by Strauss and Howe, and that I've been writing about for
8 years now. I don't completely remember which of your comments
appeared in the movie, but as I recall they were all consistent with
generational theory as I've described here.

So, Dave, I would ask you to withhold judgment on "Generation Zero"
for the time being. When all is said and done, I believe that the
movie will turn out to have been prescient, and that you'll be proud
of your role in it.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com/forum

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

At the top, I agree that the movie gave the appearance of being too
one-sided politically. When the movie described problems that were
occurring in the 1990s, there was always video of President Clinton on
the screen, but there was rarely any presidential video when it
described events in the 2000s. I found myself occasionally asking
myself, "Gee, I wonder who was president when all this was going on?"

Note well that Howe and Strauss have proved meticulously non-partisan while avoiding the effort to choose between conservatism and liberalism in Generations and The Fourth Turning even when an occasional swipe at an elected official might have proved a point.

Neil Howe had an "author's forum" in which he invited posters to contribute their theories involving the theory. I suggested (which of course gives no authority) that 4Ts are nasty because of the 3T rot that precedes them in politics and economics. Whatever virtues a 3T begin with, the 3T eventually sours as people seek weak, inattentive government that lets people do whatever they want with their wealth, cunning, and primitive drives. If the leaders that America had going into the 4T preceding the American Revolution are forgotten, then such is for good reason; they were awful. Those of the late 3T preceding the American Civil War -- Pierce, Fillmore, and Buchanan -- are generally understood to be among the three worst Presidents in history. But that was when very few people participated in elections. In the 1920s we got Warren G. Harding and massive corruption, Calvin Coolidge (who made few big decisions, but his to squeeze Germany more rigorously for reparations contributed to the hyperinflation that would make the accession of Adolf Hitler more likely, and of course Herbert Hoover. All three won landslide victories.

Historical judgment of George W. Bush is now that the only defense of him is that one agrees with his ideology. He well fit the pattern of a weak, inattentive President who fit the greed, hedonism, and anti-intellectualism characteristic of the latter part of the 3T -- the Degeneracy, as I call it.

As a rule, economic inequality intensifies as workers get stepped on. Taxes are cut for the rich, and regulation is relaxed. Much of the economic activity goes into speculative activities instead of into genuine investment. Corruption and economic fraud flourish as in no other times. What looks like economic growth is smoke and mirrors, and what is illusory collapses suddenly. Thus in 1929, and so in 2007. Drastic responses become necessary, but the political leadership either doesn't act fast enough, takes the wrong measures, or takes contradictory and counterproductive measures.

Think of the dot.com bust, a prime example of what happens when greed overpowers the caution necessary for wise investment. Then came Enrob, from which few Americans learned anything but felt good about feeling disgust at. Then we had the predatory lending with related economic fraud by rating agencies and internal accountants. By 2005 America was set for a fall, and in 2007 America had the worst economic downturn since 1929.

It is very graphic:



The blue line for 2007-2009 met the gray line of the 1929-1932 meltdown at points -- and even went below it!

And let me say that I don't want to put words into Steve Bannon's
mouth, but as far as I know, he pretty much agrees with what I'm going
to write here. He and I spoke for many hours on the phone prior to
and during the filming, about the Fourth Turning and about
Generational Dynamics, and the movie pretty much follows the concepts
that we discussed.

Howe and Strauss' generational theory and your Generational Dynamics are not the same. Yours is in part a Malthusian projection that population growth with stagnant resources leads inevitably to catastrophic wars. Apocalypse containing purges, persecutions, witch-hunts, genocide, and wars exploiting the deadliest technologies of the time without quarter is of course very different from the theory of Howe and Strauss that incorporates child-raising tendencies, mass culture, educational achievement and non-achievement, economics, and wars. A Crisis Era will dictate a Crisis mode as the norm for meeting the difficulties of the time. Society will become more regimented and intolerant of whoever violates the collective mood. 3T ways are completely rejected in practice and utterly vilified. War is no certainty, but any war is waged with intent to achieve final results.

The 4T forces a Crisis Mode, one in which all able people have clear and unambiguous roles contrary to the more primitive drives that come to the fore in a 3T. Business activity becomes long-term, low-yield, can't run activities. Mass culture becomes more omnibus in nature.

First, the movie did not explain the role of the New Deal getting us
out of the Depression because the New Deal had absolutely nothing to
do with getting us out of the Depression. Neither did WW II, for that
matter. The New Deal can be thought of as a stimulus program, and WW
II can be thought of as an even larger stimulus program, but no
stimulus program can affect the huge generational waves that caused
the Depression. All that a stimulus program can do is provide
temporary spot relief to selected people.

Revisionist history! Economic behavior changed drastically between 1929 and 1939, and although no corrupt boom was possible in the 1930s, people created wealth the hard way with new enterprises. The banking and securities industries were significantly reformed. By 1939 America was already on its way out of the Great Depression (most of the Depression was in fact a recovery).

The main feature of today's worldwide financial system is hundreds of
trillions of dollars (nominal value) of credit default swaps in
portfolios of institutions around the world. This is approaching the
staggering value of one quadrillion dollars. A trillion or two
dollars of stimulus money is totally irrelevant when compared to that
-- just as a teaspoon of water is irrelevant to the ocean.

Hundreds of trillions? A quadrillion? A quadrillion is a thousand trillion. To get some idea, the IMF estimated the total GDP of the United States as roughly $14.5 TRILLION dollars. To give some idea of the magnitude, assume that the GDP relies upon capital investment (including government) at a 20-1 ratio (5% interest). That implies about $290 trillion as a valuation of all US assets.

The credit default swaps have validity only to the extent that capital of some kind underpins them. All real estate, industry, and infrastructure altogether in the world, much of which is not leveraged, cannot be worth 1 quadrillion dollars. If people have created illusory assets as credit-default swaps, then those assets will have to disappear. There will be pain, and many people who thought themselves rich will be in the position of "Baby Doe" Tabor, heir to a spent mine, unaware of her destitution, and oblivious to reality.

These CDSs are sitting in portfolios, without anyone even thinking
about them, until they explode because some corporation or country
defaults. And since these CDSs are highly correlated, one explosion
can set off an entire chain reaction of explosions, resulting in
trillions or tens of trillions of dollars of destroyed assets. Once
again, a trillion or two of stimulus money is irrelevant.

I assure you that if I were an investor I would never have bought them. That said, anyone who invests in something that he doesn't understand is at the mercy of economic criminals.

This is all consistent with Strauss and Howe's generational theory, in
which the great events that they describe are not caused at all by
politicians. In fact, I posted a challenge on this web site several
years ago, asking anyone to find even a single place in "Generations"
or "The Fourth Turning" where S&H claim that politics events caused
the great turning events, and no one has ever met that challenge. I'm
tempted to say that politics is irrelevant to generational theory but
that isn't true. What IS true is there's only one direction of
causation. Generational trends cause political events, not
vice-versa.

Again, Howe and Strauss are meticulously non-partisan. The fault with a late 3T isn't that Republicans or even conservatives take over; it is that people get greedy and trivialize risk, cheat extensively, ignore the unglamorous long-term, low-yield, low-margin activities that create real good for humanity (and hence real wealth), and seek weak leadership that challenges none of the primitive drives of human nature.

I can predict that around 2080 (although I won't be around to see it( we will have another time much like the 1920s and the Double-Zero decade when people commit similar follies. The names of the political parties and of course the political leaders are completely unknown so far.

Having said that, I'll repeat that I think you have a fair complaint
that the movie tends to blame the Democrats more than the Republicans.
If politicians do not cause generational events, then no politicians
should be blamed.

Illustration:

History made Josef Stalin. Events made his rise to power possible and created a system in which he could exercise absolute power as nobody else before or since ever did. A few changes in events, some biographical (if Lenin had purged Stalin, then the world would be different), and some the choices of leaders before him. (Suppose that Nicholas II had withdrawn from World War I once it was shown that Russia could do nothing to save its client Serbia). Stalin fit well into a political heritage of despotic, capricious leaders in Russia as he would not have in Britain or America.

Stalin chose to purge real and imagined enemies. He chose to collectivize every economic activity in Russia. He chose to accept the deal that Hitler offered in August 1939 and then to exact its terms. History creates people, it gives opportunities for people, and people use them whether they are as benign as Mohandas Gandhi or as evil as Stalin.

However, while I'll agree that the movie presents an unfair
perception, there's actually a generational defense that the Democrats
are, if not "to blame" for the financial crisis, at least the
principle actors in the financial crisis.

They have become such by default. The GOP leadership of Dubya, Cheney, DeLay, Santorum, and Rove failed badly, and the Democrats won the majority and the responsibility to use their majority for good. We shall see.

One of the concepts that Steve left out of the movie (for lack of
time) was the role of Generation-Xers in the financial crisis. The
movie focuses exclusively on the Boomers, but in fact the financial
crisis could not have been caused by the Boomers, because everyone
agrees that the Boomers are too dumb to have devised those brilliant
structured securities that turned into toxic assets, and are also too
dumb to have figured out how to defraud investors by convincing them
to buy them.

Some people in every generation are consummately clever, dishonest, and rapacious. Maybe the retirements of the Silent from High Finance ensured that Boomers had nobody watching them. Maybe the disappearance of the GI Generation, the last to have seen the Stock Market Crash of 1929, aged out of the political scene. Maybe the disappearance of the Progressive generation from the workplace by 1929 and the very old Gilded (by then taking the role of a Civic generation, at least in the North) from political life contributed to the Great Depression. Such could be coincidence -- or cause. Who knows?

Repeal of the Glass-Steagall law in 1999 could not possibly have
caused the financial crisis, since the dot-com bubble and the
worldwide real estate bubble were already in full swing at that time,
and Fannie and Freddie were already deep into fraudulent securities
and obscene bonuses.

Insurance, retail banking, and investment banking are as incompatible as medical practice, pharmacy, and undertaking. You don't want the physicians selling panaceas, pharmacists doing surgery, or either having a stake in the mortuary business, do you?

As for the "obscene" bonuses, Boomers started taking them because they could.

If I were to pick laws that "caused" the
financial crisis, I would pick the fair housing and fair lending laws,
championed by Democrats, that put poor people, black people, women and
children into homes that they couldn't afford.

Fair housing and fair lending laws were in place long before the bubble.

Have no time to read the whole thread, but the single gripe I have with this movie is Sean Hannity promoting it. I so hate that guy.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

> Hundreds of trillions? A quadrillion? A quadrillion is a thousand
> trillion. To get some idea, the IMF estimated the total GDP of the
> United States as roughly $14.5 TRILLION dollars. To give some
> idea of the magnitude, assume that the GDP relies upon capital
> investment (including government) at a 20-1 ratio (5%
> interest). That implies about $290 trillion as a valuation of all
> US assets.

> The credit default swaps have validity only to the extent that
> capital of some kind underpins them. All real estate, industry,
> and infrastructure altogether in the world, much of which is not
> leveraged, cannot be worth 1 quadrillion dollars. If people have
> created illusory assets as credit-default swaps, then those assets
> will have to disappear. There will be pain, and many people who
> thought themselves rich will be in the position of "Baby Doe"
> Tabor, heir to a spent mine, unaware of her destitution, and
> oblivious to reality.

I have to correct myself. I can assure you that the one quadrillion
figure is quite correct, but it applies to all credit derivative
securities. CDSs alone are at $50-60 trillion. I wrote about it in
2008.

** Bickering Congressmen may delay the $800 B financial Bailout of The World (BOTW)
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...080924#e080924

Do the research, and check out the volume of credit default swaps for
yourself. If you do, then it's possible that you'll begin to be as
frightened and sickened as I am.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com/forum

A few months ago this film was all the rage. I didn't see it, but I heard a great deal about it on this forum. Since then I've kept my eyes and ears pealed. I meet a lot of politically active folks from all ends of the spectrum, including so called Tea Party folks. I've mentioned this film many times. I've not met anyone that's seen it, and only a couple people that have heard about it.

Flash in the pan? Flop?


What gives?

Originally Posted by Skabungus

Flash in the pan? Flop?


What gives?

One reason The Theory is unpopular is that it predicts change and transformation. A lot of people like to be set and inflexible in their values and beliefs. Embracing a theory where one has to accept that one's values will be obsolete and dated not so many generations in the future is tough.

Even here, where we attract a good number of people who want to see transforming change, the theory can be a tough sell. An awful lot of people aren't here to explore The Theory. Few people embrace The Theory as their primary perspective on social change and political values. Most here are much more connected to traditional Republican, Democratic or libertarian values than The Theory. There is much more energy spent here promoting main line linear thinking than cyclical or spiral perspectives.

Among the general population, it would be worse. From all I've heard of the film, they were trying to sell The Theory as endorsing conservative thinking... that in a time of crisis one must stay the same, that the faction that promotes the old values blocks transformation, and that is a good thing. They took a perspective that is hard for most people to embrace, and tried to turn it upside down. The result is a movie that very few people will want to watch and listen to.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

First, the movie did not explain the role of the New Deal getting us
out of the Depression because the New Deal had absolutely nothing to
do with getting us out of the Depression. Neither did WW II, for that
matter.

The last sentence is so self-evidently false that I feel no inclination to read the rest of what is written here. World War II certainly did end the Depression. That isn't even controversial. It created full employment at good wages for three years, and over those three years created a pool of unsatisfied consumer demand (i.e., money in people's savings accounts and war bond investments) that drove the early postwar boom. Anyone who doesn't recognize this has so little grasp of economics that they probably think a successful businessperson has a grasp of economics by virtue of that experience.

The first sentence is almost true, although "absolutely" is taking it too far. The New Deal softened and mitigated the Depression (which, contrary to the mystical notion that economic downturns entail a certain amount of necessary suffering, as if they were divine punishment rather than the working of economic process, did NOT lengthen it), and the Second New Deal reforms in particular helped ensure the long-term postwar prosperity after the pool of consumer demand was satisfied. However, it's true that the New Deal failed to end the Depression. That it could have done so if the stimulus contained in it were magnified manifold is evidenced by the fact that the war, through the same mechanism only larger, did. However, the fact remains that the New Deal did not.

Just make sure the right lesson is learned from that.

Dear Brian,

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

> The last sentence is so self-evidently false that I feel no
> inclination to read the rest of what is written here. World War II
> certainly did end the Depression. That isn't even
> controversial. It created full employment at good wages for three
> years, and over those three years created a pool of unsatisfied
> consumer demand (i.e., money in people's savings accounts and war
> bond investments) that drove the early postwar boom. Anyone who
> doesn't recognize this has so little grasp of economics that they
> probably think a successful businessperson has a grasp of
> economics by virtue of that experience.

Mainstream economists didn't predict or explain the dot-com bubble,
the real estate bubble, the credit bubble, the credit freeze, the
financial crisis, or the worldwide trade and transportation freeze.
They can't explain what's happening today, and they have no idea
what's coming next year. Anyone who thinks that anything about
economics is "self-evident" should have his head examined. But don't
worry, you're in good company with airheads like Krugman and Stiglitz.
Who knows? Keep it up, and maybe you'll even win the Nobel prize in
economics!!

By 1941, the stock market crash was 12 years in the past, so it's
perfectly reasonable to surmise that the economy would have grown
rapidly in 1941 with or without WW II. In fact, the economy had been
growing fairly steadily since the "second crash" in 1937. If you're
going to say that it's "self-evident" that A caused B, then you ought
at least to take the elementary step of first verifying that A
precedes B. But in this case, B (economic growth) actually precedes A
(WW II) by four years.

Since you're such a great economist, surely you know that wars
correlate to a poorer economy, not to a better economy. Thus, it's
perfectly plausible to surmise that the the economy would have been
even BETTER if it hadn't been SLOWED DOWN by WW II.

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, the Depression and
its aftermath were caused by huge generational waves that were
launched decades earlier, as I've explained many times on my web site.
Politicians can neither cause nor prevent these events, but can only
take the credit or blame. This kind of generational theory is what
the Fourth Turning Forum is supposed to be all about, though you'd
hardly know it ever since I stopped contributing.

Gosh, isn't this a nice visit after all this time? I can just feel
the love!! Say hi to all my old dear friends!!

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com/forum

Dear Bob,

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

> One reason The Theory is unpopular is that it predicts change and
> transformation. A lot of people like to be set and inflexible in
> their values and beliefs. Embracing a theory where one has to
> accept that one's values will be obsolete and dated not so many
> generations in the future is tough.

> Even here, where we attract a good number of people who want to
> see transforming change, the theory can be a tough sell. An awful
> lot of people aren't here to explore The Theory. Few people
> embrace The Theory as their primary perspective on social change
> and political values. Most here are much more connected to
> traditional Republican, Democratic or libertarian values than The
> Theory. There is much more energy spent here promoting main line
> linear thinking than cyclical or spiral perspectives.

> Among the general population, it would be worse. From all I've
> heard of the film, they were trying to sell The Theory as
> endorsing conservative thinking... that in a time of crisis one
> must stay the same, that the faction that promotes the old values
> blocks transformation, and that is a good thing. They took a
> perspective that is hard for most people to embrace, and tried to
> turn it upside down. The result is a movie that very few people
> will want to watch and listen to.

This is a good analysis, that I pretty much agree with. I always
compare my situation to the mythical Cassandra, hated and disbelieved
in her predictions, and then reviled and raped when the predictions
came true, and later murdered when another one of her predictions came
true.

As far as the movie is concerned, I really don't believe that the
movie was intended to endorse conservative thinking, unless you want
to say that avoiding utter financial insanity is a conservative-only
concept. It's just that the Tea Partiers are the only ones with any
interest at all in the movie, because they reject both Democrats and
Republicans in Washington.

Since the movie is anti-incumbent, and since most incumbents are
Democrats, the movie appears to be anti-Democrat. It'll be interesting
to see how the mood changes if the Republicans gain a majority in
November. All that anti-Democrat anger will start turning into
anti-Republican anger.

Also, Steve Bannon believes that once the financial crisis occurs for
real, then the movie will be regarded as prophetic.

John

John:

If you are going to assert, as you did in your post in response to me, that economics is useless and the workings of the economy are unknowable, then, ipso facto, you cannot assert, as you did before, that World War II did not end the Depression. You cannot assert this because that is an economic claim, too, and economic claims are all (according to you) meaningless.

In fact, if that's what you're going to assert, then you cannot without self-contradiction assert anything affirmative about the economy at all, and your only recourse is to fall completely silent. I invite you to do so.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Also, Steve Bannon believes that once the financial crisis occurs for real, then the movie will be regarded as prophetic.

If so, I hope he does better than Cassandra.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Bob,



This is a good analysis, that I pretty much agree with. I always
compare my situation to the mythical Cassandra, hated and disbelieved
in her predictions, and then reviled and raped when the predictions
came true, and later murdered when another one of her predictions came
true.

As far as the movie is concerned, I really don't believe that the
movie was intended to endorse conservative thinking, unless you want
to say that avoiding utter financial insanity is a conservative-only
concept. It's just that the Tea Partiers are the only ones with any
interest at all in the movie, because they reject both Democrats and
Republicans in Washington.

Since the movie is anti-incumbent, and since most incumbents are
Democrats, the movie appears to be anti-Democrat. It'll be interesting
to see how the mood changes if the Republicans gain a majority in
November. All that anti-Democrat anger will start turning into
anti-Republican anger.

Also, Steve Bannon believes that once the financial crisis occurs for
real, then the movie will be regarded as prophetic.

John

The question November will be, 'Do you have a Job?'. Who's policies do you see will help businesses hire more folks? With the Bush tax model expiring in 01/2011, the lowest wage earners will pay 5% more. See what happens when a budget isn't in place. Yeah, I want to vote Democratic....No. who will lower my taxes and help me get or keep my existing job will win.

Since no one is calling for allowing the tax cuts for low-income earners to expire, no, the lowest-earning taxpayers will not be paying 5% more.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Since no one is calling for allowing the tax cuts for low-income earners to expire, no, the lowest-earning taxpayers will not be paying 5% more.

They will pay 5% more since, I haven't seen the intent of the politicians to change it as well.

http://www.fivecentnickel.com/2010/0...ome-tax-rates/