Originally Posted by James50

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.

That's true, but it's only one issue of many.

I understand what David's saying, though. He's saying that if the Republicans take over the whole government next year, they may put an end to both Social Security and Medicare, so whether those programs are viable in the long term is irrelevant. But in saying that he envisions the 1T as freezing things in place where we are now, he demonstrates yet again his complete cluelessness.

If the Republicans do take over the government next year, and if they do dismantle Social Security and Medicare, the result will be an uprising like this country has not seen in centuries. It will truly risk revolution. But if the Republicans fail to take over the government next year, and/or don't dismantle Social Security and Medicare, the problems of the Crisis will still be with us, and we will still not be close to a 1T. We cannot have a 1T freezing in place where we are. Just can't. Won't happen, period. Forget it.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

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.

In all fairness, I think you're off base here. Brian was being illustrative here, not narcissistic.

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

The main reason why Obama is in trouble economically is the fact that his advisers believed that TARP and the stimulus, such as it was, solved the long term structural problems of the economy.
But this is not a garden variety recession.
Some economists have concceded to calling it a contraction because no one wants to use the "D" word.
If we continue to our austerity approach to handiling this downturn we will likely see the same results that were seen in the 19th century when austerity was the norm for handiling downturns. In such case we will be in a de facto depression for 20 years.
And one of the facts that is going to keep us there is that we have not reformed our banking system. It is predatory--especially to consumers. Yes, we will hear about "green shoots" along the way, but they will wither before flowering.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

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.

I used the life stages from "The Fourth turning" book. I think that is kind of an average over history. I'm not sure how they decided. I do think your ages are too old though. When do you start getting AARP mail?

If there is another anomaly it does become the norm, but it doesn't mean turning and generations are completely random. They still happen in order which is all I've ever really been concerned about. Let's say we had another 65 year saeculum we could look for the mechanism that caused another "anomaly" and add it to the theory. It hardly invalidates the whole idea.

Originally Posted by pizal81

I used the life stages from "The Fourth turning" book. I think that is kind of an average over history. I'm not sure how they decided. I do think your ages are too old though. When do you start getting AARP mail?

50, which is obviously too young.

If there is another anomaly it does become the norm, but it doesn't mean turning and generations are completely random. They still happen in order which is all I've ever really been concerned about.

Then you haven't understood the theory. It's not just a cutesy observation that certain national events and generational types come in a particular order, it's a cause and effect idea of why, and that incorporates when. Generations drive Turnings. Those words have meaning. They are either true or false. If they are true, then not just the order but also the timing is roughly predictable. If the timing is NOT roughly predictable on a generational basis, then the theory is disproven, and there is no longer any reason to expect changes to come in that order, either. It really is all or nothing.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

In all fairness, I think you're off base here. Brian was being illustrative here, not narcissistic.

Thank you, Kiff. You are of course correct, and David does of course have his head up his ass again.

Oh, and I'm not wrong about the theory, either. This is the same guy who stated that the forum-popular idea of the Gray Champion as Great Leader was part of the theory. He has no idea what the gen-cycle theory is about at all. Amazing for someone who has been here as long as he has and knew Bill Strauss personally, but it's obviously so.

Originally Posted by pizal81

When do you start getting AARP mail?

Just before you turn fifty, but that's marketing, not reality.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Thank you, Kiff. You are of course correct, and David does of course have his head up his ass again.

Oh, and I'm not wrong about the theory, either. This is the same guy who stated that the forum-popular idea of the Gray Champion as Great Leader was part of the theory. He has no idea what the gen-cycle theory is about at all. Amazing for someone who has been here as long as he has and knew Bill Strauss personally, but it's obviously so.

I hate that the two of you are at loggerheads, but so it goes, I guess.

I've been ten years posting on this forum and have seen falling outs among so many people that I've lost track.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Then you haven't understood the theory. It's not just a cutesy observation that certain national events and generational types come in a particular order, it's a cause and effect idea of why, and that incorporates when. Generations drive Turnings. Those words have meaning. They are either true or false. If they are true, then not just the order but also the timing is roughly predictable. If the timing is NOT roughly predictable on a generational basis, then the theory is disproven, and there is no longer any reason to expect changes to come in that order, either. It really is all or nothing.

On your view of the theory that is just designed to support the view that you want to have.

Republicans take over == end of SS and Medicare is democratic campaign rhetoric with a near ancient heritage. The false characterization of Ryan's plan as the end of Medicare is a simple corollary. We are not about to see the end of SS or Medicare. They will be changed. As Brian would say, they have to be changed. There is not enough money (except in PW's world ) to pay for a medical system that is already twice as expensive as the rest of the world and existing in a bubble blown up with unaccountable Medicare funding.

If you read between the lines, even Obama knows they have to be changed.

James50

Originally Posted by pizal81

On your view of the theory that is just designed to support the view that you want to have.

No, sir. On my reading for comprehension of all Strauss and Howe's books. They did not just observe a curious cycle of events, they came up with a theory to explain why it happens. That mechanism depends on timing.

The essence of the theory is "generations drive turnings and vice-versa." What does that mean? It means that:

1) Roughly every twenty years, a change in child-rearing and coming-of-age experience happens producing a new generation of children that will grow up to be different from its predecessors.

2) As this new generation comes of age, and as the two generations before it enter midlife and elderhood, the national mood shifts, producing another change in child-rearing and coming-of-age experience that produces the next generation.

3) This happens in a predictable four-stroke cycle.

In their theory, a Turning happens when the generations begin entering their new phases of life, and that is because the Turning change happens because the generations begin entering their new phases of life. A First Turning happens as the Reactive generation begins entering elderhood, the Civic generation begins entering midlife, and the Adaptive generation begins coming of age. It happens at this point in time, because these things are the cause. It is not caused by a national election, or winning or losing a war, or any such event. It is caused by the generations entering a new phase of life as a new Adaptive generation comes of age.

At this point, the oldest Xers are only 50. That is 15 years away from elderhood. The oldest Millennials are only 29. That is 15 or 16 years away from midlife. The oldest Homelanders or whatever we end up calling them are only 5. That's 15 or 16 years away from coming of age. The 1T will be caused by Xers entering elderhood, Millennials entering midlife, and the new Adaptives coming of age. As those causes are more than a decade away, so is the 1T.

That's if the theory is correct, of course. But if it isn't, then there is no such thing as a 1T, and so it still can't happen now.

Originally Posted by James50

Republicans take over == end of SS and Medicare is democratic campaign rhetoric with a near ancient heritage. The false characterization of Ryan's plan as the end of Medicare is a simple corollary. We are not about to see the end of SS or Medicare. They will be changed. As Brian would say, they have to be changed. There is not enough money (except in PW's world ) to pay for a medical system that is already twice as expensive as the rest of the world and existing in a bubble blown up with unaccountable Medicare funding.

If you read between the lines, even Obama knows they have to be changed.

James50

If "change" equals improvement, I'm all for it.

Let's start with end-of-life care, without all the "death panel" nonsense from Sarah Palin.

Originally Posted by The Rani

(emphasis added)

Hey, that's what *I* said.

And you're every bit as wrong as Mr. Kaiser is, in this instance.

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

The Democrats tend to favor the Keynesian approach whereas the Republicans almost to a man support Supply Side policies and reject Keynesian approaches. If the GOP ends up controlling the Congress and the White House come 2013, we won't be using a classical Keynesian approach.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

At this point, the oldest Xers are only 50. That is 15 years away from elderhood.

Damn straight. I do have my AARP card, but I joined just to see if the discounts are better than AAA.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

And you're every bit as wrong as Mr. Kaiser is, in this instance.

With more excuse, though. I expect it from her. Hell hath no fury and all that.

Well, actually at this point I expect it from David, too.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

With more excuse, though. I expect it from her. Hell hath no fury and all that.

Well, actually at this point I expect it from David, too.

The misogyny returns.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Social Security is a welfare program. Calling it a Ponzi scheme is an analogy, and an accurate one. Continuously printing money to keep it going will make that money worthless, which ends in the same result (worse actually) than receiving no payout at all.

Surely, you must be feeling very uncomfortable, yes?

Cognitive dissonance a discomfort caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously

How is it possible that SS is a welfare program, a Ponzi scheme and the cause of hyperinflation all at the same time??? I realize that these are all dittohead memes, but it is rather amazing, and thoroughly entertaining, to see them all in two short sentences. I think you've outdone yourself this time, JPT!


The Ponzi scheme meme is derived from a politically-based purposeful misunderstanding of SS's pay-as-you-go program. The problem is that the pay-as-you-go program is itself as much a myth as the the politically-charged Ponzi scheme meme. The payroll tax does nothing but destroy current money supply in the economy; it is not "saved" by the federal government for future payment under some pay-as-you-go myth and it is not pocketed illegally by anyone under your politically-charged Ponzi scheme meme - the electrons that represented the taxes paid simply disappear. When the time comes to pay a recipent's SS benefit, the Fed merely sends electrons to the accounts of SS beneficiaries. End of story.

Your reference to "worthless money" is taking one of the two primary concerns of federal spending, i.e. inflation (the other concern is unemployment), and becoming irrationally hysterical over it - as with your purposeful misunderstanding of pay-as-you-go, your irrational inflation hysteria is also politically motivated.

The notion of "worthless money" is the extreme case of hyper-inflation. ALL historic cases of hyperinflation have resulted from at least one of two conditions being present (often both, or the second soon emerges after the first has gotten things going) neither of which exist in the US and there is no credible forecast of either of these two conditions emerging. The first condition is that a sovereign owes significant debt in foreign currencies (see Weimer Republic or current Greece) - the US govt does not owe any significant debt in anything other than its own currency for which it has a monopoly to issue.

The second condition is that the sovereign has lost its authority to tax its economic production (see Zimbabwe) usually accompanied by it loss monopoly on sanctioned violence - again, not in the foreseeable future in the US except by those wishing for magic pony land.

While in a healthy economy there is always a low-level of inflation (due to societal preference for production that is not subject to productivity improvements - see barbers), it is true that inflation can reach levels that are indeed harmful even though far short of hyper-inflation. Should such harmful inflation begin to emerge, decisions can be made AT THAT TIME to reduce SS benefits or a myriad of other spending or to increase taxes which destroys money supply and makes the remaining more dear (i.e. prices drop). There is no way to predict if the future economy will be inflationary, deflationary or just right when future retirees need their banking accounts to be credited by the Fed - if you say otherwise, then you are just trying to sell your political biases.

Just to note, thousands (if not millions represented by institutions) are currently paying the US govt to hold trillions of dollars of their money for at least 10 years (real interest rates on 10-yr T-bill are negative) - there is no sign of harmful inflation on the horizon. Why are you so afraid?

If you would put away your political bias, you might actually learn something about reality - and you might stop being so scared and hysterical.

Originally Posted by James50

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

James, you're talking like the rational man that you are. Your solution--and mine--is single payer. In case you haven't noticed, the emerging Republican majority is not going to do that. Your counting on the Republicans to act sensibly, and I think you're going to lose that bet.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

The misogyny returns.

Not really. The Rani has it in for him on a personal level. Notice how she quickly jumps in with Brian's opponent time and again. No matter who it is, or what the topic's about.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Looks like you've forgotten who scorned whom.

I think he's referring to the ignore list, not all the older stuff.

And Kiff, you really do him no favors by feeding into the narcissism.

Haw haw. I just read him better than you do.

Originally Posted by James50

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

James, I read this quote over several times trying to decipher exactly what you are trying to say. Are you saying that the country (along with the Republicans) are moving center right? Correct me if I'm not understanding that to be what you meant.

But I don't see any movement towards the center at all. Especially in the Republican camp. Surely you don't think that several of contenders for the Republican nomination are center. Bachmann, Perry, and Palin (although she hasn't thrown her hat is still technically on the list) are pretty extreme. And Ron Paul, although he does surprisingly have a pretty good following with GenX isn't center on anything. Perhaps, you are referring to Romney. Although I had originally thought he would probably be the obvious choice because of his name recognition, I'm not so sure he is going to get the nomination. It seems the Republican people are favoring the more extreme candidates. There are probably other candidates that were at that debate who are moderate but it doesn't appear they really have a chance at this point. Their numbers are pretty low.

It appears to me that people of America as they become more and more divided are moving farther into their own separate camps and getting more extreme regardless of which party they side with. I expect to see a very extreme left candidate emerge during the 2016 election.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

James, you're talking like the rational man that you are. Your solution--and mine--is single payer. In case you haven't noticed, the emerging Republican majority is not going to do that. Your counting on the Republicans to act sensibly, and I think you're going to lose that bet.

My latest take is that we will see single payer break out like crocus from the frozen earth at the state level. Fee for service is doomed.

James50

Originally Posted by The Rani

I could say the same about you commenting on my posts.

We-ell, not really. There was a discussion you had recently about the intrinsic value of animals in which I thought you made some good points. Perhaps I should have commented on that.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Well, as long as you want to have this conversation in public ...
He sent me a few PM's trying to "make amends," then a nasty one about how since I wasn't responding he was going to put me on ignore.

Meh. I draw the line at public disclosure of PM's. But whatever....