Originally Posted by The Rani

Absolutely. I used to get frustrated trying to control other people, too.
Now I've learned better.

That was probably the most life changing epiphany I've had in life. I think I came to it towards the end of the my 30's. I can try to convince, persuade or manipulate people all I wanted to, but I really can't make anyone do or feel the way I want them to. It was also rather freeing when I finally came to this realization. Like a weight had been lifted off my shoulders. I'm actually only responsible for myself. Not the rest of the world.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

It is not a Ponzi scheme at all. It's a scheme whereby today's workers pay for today's retirees. End of story. Now it's true that the ratio of workers to retirees could change and reduce benefits but it's still the program and there will always be money going into it. The idea that it's a Ponzi scheme is an unusually dumb piece of Republican propaganda.

I use to believe this as well, i.e., that today's workers pay for today's retirees and tomorrow's workers pay for tomorrow's retirees, or more generally, federal taxes pay for federal spending. However, the truth is federal taxes pay for nothing; federal taxes reduce the amount of money supply - end of story.

Think about those future retirees, Boomers, that supposedly will get their benefits from the SS Trust Fund. By now, everyone understands the fed govt didn't 'save' the taxes that supposedly went into the Trust Fund - at best, there is a special piece of paper that indicates a bond is held for the SS Trust Fund. When the time comes for SS benefits to be "drawn" from that bond, what do you think will happen?

What happens is the Treasury either prints checks (less and less of that going on) or the Fed Reserve sends electrons (increasingly the primary means) to the banks to increase the accounts held there by SS recipients. Does anyone believe that the govt is going to run out of paper/ink to make those checks or run out of electrons to credit bank accounts?

SS recipients with their checks or credited accounts will be able to spend their money in the economy; there is no way to differentiate their money from anyone else's money. Their spending will increase aggregate demand over what it would be without their spending. As long as the economy is able to meet the total in aggregate demand AT THAT TIME there is no cost to that increased aggregate demand; in fact, it may be desperately needed at that time if, like today, aggregate demand is way under economic capacity and there is disinflation, if not a recession, and unemployment.

If at the time, aggregate demand exceeds aggregate supply, then there may be generalize priced increases and decisions will need to be made at that time on whether that level of inflation is at harmful levels, and if so, how to manage that inflation - that may include the need to reduce benefits of SS and other spending programs or it could include tax increases. There is no way to know what the economic situation will be in the next few days let alone what it will be like decades from now. If someone says otherwise, they're just trying to sell you a belief system.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Precisely. It's JPT who, like Rick Scary, suggests that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. I compare Social Security to life insurance companies because those are the only imaginable analogues to Social Security ... and they would not be up to the job. Life-insurance companies have costs of administration far higher than is so for Social Security. Privatization of Social Security would require that the government mandate payments into (mostly) privately-owned life insurance companies. Government would decide which life insurance companies could collect premiums, creating the potential for major corruption.

Insurance companies have no incentive for paying people who earned low and erratic incomes through their working lives an amount capable of supporting anyone's survival. Because of the higher overhead in life insurance companies, the payout could never be as generous. Privatization of Social Security would be a boon only for entities which could get investment capital cheaply from persons obliged to pay in and from Social Security itself.

This comparison is a good one but only within the framework of the false belief system that the federal govt is anything like a private enterprise.

There is no private enterprise that has a monopoly on dollar issuance. The federal government does not save dollars like an insurance company or any other business, household, person or state/local govt. The federal government issues new money (by spending) and destroys existing money (by taxing). There is no way the federal govt, owing its debt in the money it alone issues, can default. The only constraint on federal spending is its potential to move to a level of inflation that is harmful; that, in turn, is not possible without aggregate demand first reaching the economy's maximum supply potential (including full employment) - that is in no ones' forecast for the foreseeable future and even if it began to occur, there are substantial tools for its management.

We need to escape the false worldview of a commodity-based currency; we have not had that since 1971. The false worldview is equally held by conservatives and progressives; its demise holds great benefits for both conservative and progressive values and would be of enormous benefit to the Nation and our people.

Social Security is stronger than life insurance companies. It has a lower ratio of cost of operation to either assets under control or to payouts. Social Security pays no commission-driven insurance agents and doesn't have an executive elite who devour huge amounts of cost through executive compensation.

What I meant to say was a prime example of reductio ad absurdum* -- that anyone who says that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, then so is any insurance company. No, insurance companies are absolutely not Ponzi schemes. They are good places for the unimaginative to park money if they don't want to cash in an asset (as they do when they make withdrawals from bank accounts) and accept sub-normal returns on assets as compensation for knowing that their assets won't rise and fall in value from day to day.

*In mathematics that is the sort of proof that establishes that the square root of 2 is an irrational number.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

After listening to the debate last night; one thing came to my mind; what the heck does the Tea Party stand for and why the heck are they still eating up the Neo-Con message. They attack Paul on his rationale with Muslims and 9/11 (He is correct in his opinion which I share as well). Bachmann the Subsidy Queen along with Romney with Romneycare, it was a hoot watching who could deface their base the best. With that, Obama will get his second term.

That's because the TP is the same old GOP crap, just in new packaging. Much like after Bush's approval rating dropped into the 20s a lot of Republican Movement Conservatives started calling themselves "Libertarians".

Hey, some good news for a change. Elizabeth Warren is running against Scott Brown for Ted Kennedy's old senate seat. She's terrific. Potentially an important leader in our country during the 4T (aka "gray champion" material??). There's a good chance at least for one senate seat turning in the right way, while there are some others that might turn the other way.

Originally Posted by ASB65

That was probably the most life changing epiphany I've had in life. I think I came to it towards the end of the my 30's. I can try to convince, persuade or manipulate people all I wanted to, but I really can't make anyone do or feel the way I want them to. It was also rather freeing when I finally came to this realization. Like a weight had been lifted off my shoulders. I'm actually only responsible for myself. Not the rest of the world.

Sometimes I might forget. But I agree completely.

Perry seems to be an empty suit, mostly. When he's not a wacko right-wing nut-job, he goes with whatever is in his political or financial interest. At least he is usually smiling. Dangerous indeed, because charm can deceive, big time!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Perry seems to be an empty suit, mostly. When he's not a wacko right-wing nut-job, he goes with whatever is in his political or financial interest. At least he is usually smiling. Dangerous indeed, because charm can deceive, big time!

Charm is much of the stock in trade of sociopathic personalities.

We have thirteen months until the event that is the subject of this thread takes place, but as things look right now, the Republicans, after the next election, will control the entire federal government and proceed to dismantle it. My hope that this wretched 4T might be nearing an end took a big hit in last night's two special elections--especially the one in New York. Also out the window went any chance that the Republicans in the meantime might decide they had to behave a little more responsibly. As the article we all read lately told us from inside their camp, wrecking the government validates their basic position, and they will go on doing it. For a broader analysis confirming this view see Nate Silver this morning.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

My hope that this wretched 4T might be nearing an end took a big hit in last night's two special elections--especially the one in New York.

You are confusing me. Your "regeneracy will not be televised" thread implied that there would be no democratic comeback. Here a democrat lost and you think it extends the 4T. I thought you would think it supported your thesis.

If the 1T consensus turns out to be what we identify as republican today then the path to that 1T will see a lot of democrats fall by the wayside. It seems just as likely that there is a center-right consensus friendly to republicans forming as their does that we are headed into further intensified conflict.

James50

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Perry seems to be an empty suit, mostly. When he's not a wacko right-wing nut-job, he goes with whatever is in his political or financial interest. At least he is usually smiling. Dangerous indeed, because charm can deceive, big time!

No, he is pretty much a wacko nut job.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

We have thirteen months until the event that is the subject of this thread takes place, but as things look right now, the Republicans, after the next election, will control the entire federal government and proceed to dismantle it. My hope that this wretched 4T might be nearing an end took a big hit in last night's two special elections--especially the one in New York. Also out the window went any chance that the Republicans in the meantime might decide they had to behave a little more responsibly. As the article we all read lately told us from inside their camp, wrecking the government validates their basic position, and they will go on doing it. For a broader analysis confirming this view see Nate Silver this morning.

I dont place alot of stock in special elections in general. The size of both victories however is somewhat significant. Local factors in the NY race, the stain of Wiener (no pun intended) and the utter incompetence of Weprin (along with a really bad toupee) helped with that result. The Dems should have won that seat regardless of Obama's popularity. I'd say the Nevada race was much more indicative of where the country is right now. Although its a Republican district it should have been much closer. This only provides a snapshot of, perhaps, where the country is at this moment. 14 months is several lifetimes in politics. Obama still has time......but its getting short and the country is rapidly tuning him out

Originally Posted by James50

You are confusing me.

He's confused himself, James, not least in thinking that the outcome of next year's election has any bearing on when the 4T will end. I suspect it of being old-Boomer-itis without any real cognitive significance.

We won't see a 1T consensus for at least another decade, and whatever it turns out to be, it won't be the positions taken by politicians in the centerpoint of either of the two major parties today. Certainly not the Republicans, who are so divorced from reality it's amazing they can open their eyes in the morning, but really not the Democrats either. Both parties are corrupted by corporate money, and that is the internal political issue that must be resolved before we can resolve the economic, international, and environmental/resource issues necessary to end the Crisis. As usual, we don't see the leadership* necessary to resolve things this early in the 4T. From the voters' standpoint, the fact that neither party is capable of handling matters is the reality, and will necessitate a great deal of agitation, demonstrations, and boat-rocking before anything gets fixed.

And of course, if the theory is correct it also can't happen for another 10 years because I won't turn 65 until then.

EDIT: If you want to see a hopeful sign, I give you Sarah Palin's criticism of her fellow Republicans lately for embracing "crony capitalism." Spread that around, turn up the volume on the similar internal critique on the other side of the aisle, and we'll be close to finding that consensus, although much will still be needed in order to implement it.

* Roosevelt is not an exception. While the same man was in the White House in 1933 as in 1945, the same ideas, plans, and purposes were not.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

We won't see a 1T consensus for at least another decade, and whatever it turns out to be, it won't be the positions taken by politicians in the centerpoint of either of the two major parties today.

I watch more business news than straight news. If I had never heard of S&H and simply looked at the history of other financial crises, the conclusion would be that it takes about 8 years from crisis to resolution. This would mean we should expect significantly better times around 2016. Perhaps synchronicity between the business cycle and the cultural cycle will not occur, but this 2016 date is much closer than a decade.

S&H is a sophisticated if fuzzy explanation for events. A more direct business oriented approach is to simply say that we will have another 5 years of slow growth and de-leveraging before we have built a new base for prosperity assuming we continue a classical Keynesian approach by government. It won't make much difference who we elect.

James50

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

And of course, if the theory is correct it also can't happen for another 10 years because I won't turn 65 until then.
.

How many times do people have to tell you that that is not a hard and fast rule? I pointed out the oldest silents were 59 in 1984 when the 3T started and they were supposed to be entering elderhood. That is 6 years removed from your elder hood mark, which is by the way two years later than the one in S&Hs book.
Plus there is a crisis that started early within the theory so an early crisis is actually already part of the theory. How can another one negate it?

That said you might be right that the crisis lasts another 10 years, but the way you are framing your statements is pretty ridiculous considering most of us have read "The Fourth Turning" book and know that the crisis beginning prediction was 2005 GIVE OR TAKE 5 YEARS. The theory isn't invalid if things don't line up exactly as predicted. (Not to mention that 2001 does fall within S&H criteria just not yours.)
I mean do scientist through out a hypothesis if the results are just a little off what they predicted? Of course, not they take and interpret the data they gathered. The hypothesis may or may not be junk. It could just need a little tweaking. I mean you can change the life stages and make up for all the problems you present. 63 may be a little late to be the start of elder hood. 21 is a strange start date for young adulthood since we vote at 18. 36 is considered middle aged according to consumer demographics. Do you see where I'm going with this? Using the life stage age as a gold standard is not gunna cut it.

Originally Posted by pizal81

How many times do people have to tell you that that is not a hard and fast rule?

It's harder and faster than that. We can't have a 1T beginning three years after the 4T begins, when almost all of a generation is in their 3T phase of life still. Either the theory is valid in which case the 1T is at least ten years away, or it's not in which case there's no such thing as a 1T. In either case, it can't happen now.

Originally Posted by James50

I watch more business news than straight news. If I had never heard of S&H and simply looked at the history of other financial crises, the conclusion would be that it takes about 8 years from crisis to resolution. This would mean we should expect significantly better times around 2016. Perhaps synchronicity between the business cycle and the cultural cycle will not occur, but this 2016 date is much closer than a decade.

S&H is a sophisticated if fuzzy explanation for events. A more direct business oriented approach is to simply say that we will have another 5 years of slow growth and de-leveraging before we have built a new base for prosperity assuming we continue a classical Keynesian approach by government. It won't make much difference who we elect.

James50

Other financial crises back how far, though? In the past 3 years I've heard far too many false predictions based on how "all the past recessions, clear back to 1945! have played out." Then the scratching of heads and frantic racing to cover their intellectual behinds when the theories didn't pan out because the facts were otherwise.

Sound byte: false prophets lead to a loss of profits.

Here are the real life stages by the way. I think they are a little older than society defines them. I wonder what exactly they were looking at when they decided them.

Childhood (Ages 0-20)
Young Adulthood (Ages 21-41)
Midlife Ages (42-62)
Elderhood Age (63-83)

Originally Posted by James50

You are confusing me. Your "regeneracy will not be televised" thread implied that there would be no democratic comeback. Here a democrat lost and you think it extends the 4T. I thought you would think it supported your thesis.

If the 1T consensus turns out to be what we identify as republican today then the path to that 1T will see a lot of democrats fall by the wayside. It seems just as likely that there is a center-right consensus friendly to republicans forming as their does that we are headed into further intensified conflict.

James50

OK, James, please read carefully, because you represent a key swing constituency.

There will be no Democratic comeback in the form of a return to something like the New Deal, no. But the end of the 4T, I have said more than once, depends on us stabilizing more or less where we are now, with, for instance, Medicare and Social Security still in place, with functioning (barely) state and local governments, and with the remnants of a tax structure. That clearly is what the President wants and he wants to move us into the 1T.

A total Republican victory next time will not put us on a sustainable path. I shudder to think what it will do, but it will be catastrophic. It will probably dismantle modern government in the United States, it will increase unemployment another 5-10%, it will put health out of reach of millions. . .I could go on and on.

Now I can hear some lefties welcoming this on the grounds that if things get bad enough we will have to swing left again. Or that the coasts will secede. But I don't believe that. I don't think we know how to swing left again in a meaningful way. I'm really frightened about where we will go; I have no confidence that it will be anywhere good. A stable society cannot be built on total unreality, and the current Republican Party is just as out of touch with reality as the Communist Party of China ever was--even though they are not going in a totalitarian direction.

By the way--I'm going to permit myself an exception to the rule I made some time ago. Brian's on my ignore, but I saw the following quote: "And of course, if the theory is correct it also can't happen for another 10 years because I won't turn 65 until then." It's not that it's factually wrong about the theory, which it is--it's that that quote sums up Brian, and so many other Boomers of both political stripes, so well. It's all about him. His interest in the theory is based on his moral certainty that it will make the world turn out exactly as he hopes. I'm glad I've been able to see beyond that.

Originally Posted by James50

I watch more business news than straight news. If I had never heard of S&H and simply looked at the history of other financial crises, the conclusion would be that it takes about 8 years from crisis to resolution.

In the first place, this is not a typical downturn. It's more like the Great Depression: a systemically sick economy vulnerable to being reset by any financial trigger into a permanent new level of reduced productivity and performance, until the rules are rewritten and it gets a big jump-start. We're no longer in recession, although we may be headed for a double-dip, but we're in depression and will stay there until we fix the problem.

In the second place, the recession/depression is only part of the Crisis. There's more to it.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Other financial crises back how far, though? In the past 3 years I've heard far too many false predictions based on how "all the past recessions, clear back to 1945! have played out." Then the scratching of heads and frantic racing to cover their intellectual behinds when the theories didn't pan out because the facts were otherwise.

Sound byte: false prophets lead to a loss of profits.

I am relying on the book "This time its different" by Reinhart and Rogoff. The book is subtitled "Eight centuries of financial folly". The authors are economics professors at Harvard and U of Maryland. They say this has all happened before and that looking at how we get out of recessions does not tell you much about how you get out of the much less frequent financial crises. What we are in is a different animal from your run-of-the-mill post WW2 recessions. Obama (and other prognosticators) found this out much to his chagrin when he predicted a post-stimulus unemployment rate that was much lower than what actually happened. In these financial crises, the roadmap is that the private sector becomes over-leveraged and when it collapses, the debts are move onto the public sector. The private debt crisis turns into a sovereign debt crisis. It takes years to recover.

One interesting factoid from the book is that Greece has been in a state of sovereign default about 1 out of every 2 years since it gained independence in the 19th century. Some things never change.

James50

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In the first place, this is not a typical downturn. It's more like the Great Depression: a systemically sick economy vulnerable to being reset by any financial trigger into a permanent new level of reduced productivity and performance, until the rules are rewritten and it gets a big jump-start. We're no longer in recession, although we may be headed for a double-dip, but we're in depression and will stay there until we fix the problem.

Quite agree this is not a typical downturn.

In the second place, the recession/depression is only part of the Crisis. There's more to it.

When in doubt, I am in economic determinist. If prosperity returns, it will also freeze any move to drastic political change. The voter will take a "why rock the boat" attitude when times are good.

James50

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

But the end of the 4T, I have said more than once, depends on us stabilizing more or less where we are now, with, for instance, Medicare and Social Security still in place, with functioning (barely) state and local governments, and with the remnants of a tax structure. That clearly is what the President wants and he wants to move us into the 1T.

It all comes down to Medicare. The situation with SS is just not dire enough to required huge changes. Medicare has to be changed. We cannot be stable with the current medical delivery system and no-accountability government funding we have today.

James50

Originally Posted by pizal81

Here are the real life stages by the way. I think they are a little older than society defines them. I wonder what exactly they were looking at when they decided them.

Childhood (Ages 0-20)
Young Adulthood (Ages 21-41)
Midlife Ages (42-62)
Elderhood Age (63-83)

What's your basis for setting the boundaries at that point? I would set them differently, and I can tell you why. These are also America-specific and may be slightly different elsewhere.

Young adulthood begins at 22. That's the age at which most young people graduate college. A case could also be made for 21, when all the legal privileges of adulthood are gained, but with most people attending college now 22 seems a better choice.

Midlife begins at 45. This is more psychological than anything else. At 40, one is still young. At 50, one is clearly middle-aged. 45, the midpoint between the two, is when someone realizes that the 40s are half over. It's the age of the midlife crisis, of denial setting in.

Elderhood begins at 65, because that is retirement age in this society and the age when one can begin drawing full Social Security benefits and become eligible for Medicare.

Present ages of the three important generations for this 4T are:

Boomers 50-68
Xers 29-50
Millennials 5-29

It's not a rigid, hard and fast line,no, but if the theory has any validity, for the Crisis to end the youngest Boomers at least have to be in their 60s, the youngest Xers in their 40s, and the youngest Millennials in their late teens. It's WAY too soon.

What do we mean by a 1T? We mean a reset of the national institutions, creating a new consensus of governance that will last for decades. That we should even expect such an occurrence at all is a result of the gen-cycle theory, without which it happens randomly, or doesn't, and is unpredictable and there's no reason to expect any such a consensus to form around any concept of governance, good or bad.

Again, either the theory is correct or it's not. If it is, then we can't have a 1T happening for at least another decade. If it's not, then there is no such thing as a 1T and we shouldn't necessarily expect it ever. Either way, it can't happen now.

Next year's election is, like all elections, of short-term significance, but in terms of when the Crisis ends or what the consensus will be around which it will end it means absolutely nothing.

EDIT: And please, nobody bring up the Civil War Anomaly. If there even was a Civil War Anomaly (I don't really think so), it was an anomaly -- something out of the ordinary and, within the theory, unexplainable, that happened ONCE. If it can happen again any old time, if anomaly becomes the norm, then the theory will simply have been proven wrong and we can toss it and forget all this talk of Turnings and generations.