Originally Posted by ASB65

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.

Yes, it seems to me indisputable that the electorate moved right between 2008 and 2010. Nothing that has happened since has changed that. For example, see this example of the unions feeding on themselves in Wisconsin. After all the demonstrations and recall elections, the unions were unable to get anything changed. They are crumbling along with their financial base.

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.

I don't think the Republicans will be so foolish as to nominate a kamikazi presidential candidate. I guess anything is possible, but it just seems unlikely after the experience of Angle and O'Donnell last year. You will see boomlets like Bachmann come and go, but the end result will be someone who is more or less in the mainstream right. Of the candidates in the race now, Romney seems the best fit for the mood of the country. If Perry is the nominee, it will only be at the end of a process that brings him more to the center. Like most politicians, he will bend with the winds.

The most likely outcome is an Obama re-election with majority Republican in both house and senate. That combination will lead to more right leaning policy, but no big changes.

Mainly, I think we just have to wait the economy out. Its going to take another 5 years.

James50

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

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.

Change means solvency more than anything else.

James50

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

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

Actually, I was referring to the older stuff, too, as her original motivation, and she's right, which means I take it back -- she DOESN'T have any excuse. And I bloody well wish she'd get over it already. If I can do it, so can she.

By the way, the reason she's on ignore is because she follows me around delivering personal snark and behaving like an ass all the time. It has nothing to do with any PMs.

Originally Posted by James50

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

My friend, if that happens I'll fly to Atlanta and buy you dinner at a restaurant of your choice. Anywhere they serve white folks. . . (see Generations and Race thread.)

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

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

They tend to be identical. Take it from someone who has both.

I just realized, or should I say discovered, that there are people here who refuse to receive PMs. Hmmm.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

My friend, if that happens I'll fly to Atlanta and buy you dinner at a restaurant of your choice. Anywhere they serve white folks. . . (see Generations and Race thread.)

Hmm. Do you know that James50 is white?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

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.

Let's review the evidence:

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.

So David as "David" is expected to behave like this.

But The Rani is "a woman scorned."

I repeat...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

The misogyny returns.

Best...

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

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

I stand by it. I have said a lot more to Brian personally than I have said here, and he can take it or leave it. As I have said, when some one repeatedly drives me nuts here, I think the adult response is to put them on ignore rather than start a public argument about their emotional problems. But let me say, it's different at work. If some one at your work place starts repeatedly going over the edge, try to make sure something drastic is done at once. If you don't something much worse is likely to happen. My colleagues and I learned that the hard way some years back.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, I was referring to the older stuff, too, as her original motivation, and she's right, which means I take it back -- she DOESN'T have any excuse. And I bloody well wish she'd get over it already. If I can do it, so can she.

By the way, the reason she's on ignore is because she follows me around delivering personal snark and behaving like an ass all the time. It has nothing to do with any PMs.

Back to Mr. Kaiser's original comment for a moment. I think many of us here are all too prone to see "Boomer narcissism" in way too many places. It doesn't hurt to ask someone to clarify a statement if you're not sure. Of course Boomers are susceptible to narcissism but that doesn't mean it's in everything they say. They don't necessarily think it's all about them.

Brian happens to be a very smart person with strong opinions and serious arguments to back them up. And he will correct himself (as he just did above) when it's called for. That is not narcissistic behavior. Admitting one's mistakes is mature behavior.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I just realized, or should I say discovered, that there are people here who refuse to receive PMs. Hmmm.

Yes, I shut it off some time back when I was feeling particularly piquish with the forum.

In light of the current conversation, I am thinking about switching it on again.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

They tend to be identical. Take it from someone who has both.

I was starting to get that impression.

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

Except 4T crises are never entirely about economics. We'll have this 4T until 2027 no matter how the economy performs.

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.

Im still convinced 40 is the new 30..... I guess I'll have to warn my wife that in a year I'll be purchasing a convertable corvette and hitting on gals half my age.

I disagree with you about the Civil War anomaly. I do believe it has happened again, with 9/11 being the start of the crisis era. Our crisis will last longer than the Civil War crisis but still will end earlier in terms of generational position than the last crisis. I predict we will be 1T by around 2020 hopefully much sooner and hopefully much, much less bloody.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

So David as "David" is expected to behave like this.

But The Rani is "a woman scorned."

I didn't read it that way, and I'm female besides. Hang yourself up on the phraseology all you want. The snarky behavior is what it is.

Have a GREEATTT day!!

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

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.

I agree; it's hard to be optimistic at this point, though I can't close my heart to hope. I have a hunch that, as with Bush-Cheney last time, an all-Republican government WILL in fact also lead us in a totalitarian direction, whatever Republicans say now; even as it dismantles the government it doesn't like. And of course we will also be left with the corporate world, which is authoritarian if not totalitarian.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I stand by it. I have said a lot more to Brian personally than I have said here, and he can take it or leave it.

OK. We'll have to agree to disagree.

As I have said, when some one repeatedly drives me nuts here, I think the adult response is to put them on ignore rather than start a public argument about their emotional problems.

Sure, and I've done that for the same reasons.

But let me say, it's different at work. If some one at your work place starts repeatedly going over the edge, try to make sure something drastic is done at once. If you don't something much worse is likely to happen. My colleagues and I learned that the hard way some years back.

Of course, but we're not in a workplace situation on the forum.

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

You got it right. Of course he does; he tried to change it in 2009, though half-heartedly; but then backed down.

Originally Posted by James50

Yes, it seems to me indisputable that the electorate moved right between 2008 and 2010. Nothing that has happened since has changed that. For example, see t<a href="http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/09/wisconsin-unions-start-feeding-on-themselves/" target="_blank">his example</a> of the unions feeding on themselves in Wisconsin. After all the demonstrations and recall elections, the unions were unable to get anything changed. They are crumbling along with their financial base.<br>
<br>
<br>
I don't think the Republicans will be so foolish as to nominate a kamikazi presidential candidate. I guess anything is possible, but it just seems unlikely after the experience of Angle and O'Donnell last year. You will see boomlets like Bachmann come and go, but the end result will be someone who is more or less in the mainstream right. Of the candidates in the race now, Romney seems the best fit for the mood of the country. If Perry is the nominee, it will only be at the end of a process that brings him more to the center. Like most politicians, he will bend with the winds.<br>
<br>
The most likely outcome is an Obama re-election with majority Republican in both house and senate. That combination will lead to more right leaning policy, but no big changes. <br>
<br>
Mainly, I think we just have to wait the economy out. Its going to take another 5 years.<br>
<br>
James50

I'm not so certain Perry knows how to be center. He has never had to be in his political career. Texas is a pretty extreme state. And it doesn't take much more than just being the Republican candidate to win. All he had to do was show campaign commercials in his chaps, riding off on his horse into the sunset and he was a shew in. He never had to worry about appeasing the Democratic constituency because they are so outnumbered by Republicans down here, that it doesn't really matter. But what plays in Texas, is probably not going play on the national level. The Republicans are probably going to be in trouble if they nominate him.

I admit that I really don't know a whole lot about Romney. I was turned off by him during the last primary cycle so I just didn't pay a whole lot attention to him. (Believe it or not I was trying to give every candidate a look because back then, early on in the primary season, I was completely undecided.) But I just didn't like Romney. There was something about his smug demeanor that just turned me off. He seems too polished. Too elite. Like it would be impossible for him to identify with the average man and woman on the street. Plus he was out of running fairly early on in that race. The Republicans wrapped it much more quickly than the Democrats did. So I just didn't learn much about him. So I don't honestly know how center he actually is. But if he does get the nomination, I will investigate him more. I'm not saying I would necessarily vote for him. I just like to have fairly good knowledge of each candidate running for President. Since either candidate could be our President one day.

PS: I think it's probably going to take longer than 5 years to turn this country around. I'd double that figure.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

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.

What your hope (perhaps based on Boomer moral certainty?) is that "stabilizing" is possible and provides a "sustainable path." I agree that a GOP takeover of govt, with its expected crazed austerity solutions, would make that not only impossible but rapidly make thing worst - much worse. I don't agree, however, that an Obama/Dem victory does anything more than delay the arrival of the same endpoint - "muddle through," if it wins the election, will eventually be seen for what it is - a temporary and eventually proven false panacea.

The world has changed, and it is still changing at an even more rapid pace. Jobs are being automated away globally and at an accelerating pace; examples here -


http://singularityhub.com/2011/08/02...e-human-labor/

World’s Largest Electronics Manufacturer Foxconn Wants 1 Million More Robots In 3 Years. Bye-bye Human Labor

Cheap labor isn’t cheap enough for the world’s largest electronics manufacturer. Terry Gou, the CEO of Foxconn recently told employees that they would be replacing human workers with one million robots over the next three years. These robots would handle many basic manufacturing tasks such as spraying, welding, and assembly. Foxconn is based in Taiwan and has nearly 1.2 million workers, the vast majority of which (~1M) live in China, but it’s unclear how many humans would be losing their positions during the switch. Even if robots are used to augment production rather than completely replace people, we’re looking at a major shift in the industry. Contracted with Apple (it’s rumored Foxconn makes the iPad2), HP, Dell, Nokia, Sony, and many other top brands, the electronics giant is singlehandedly responsible for nearly half of all such technological production in the world! If Foxconn switches from cheap Chinese labor to robots, can the rest of the world be far behind?

http://singularityhub.com/2011/07/04...es-job-better/

Lawyers Object As Computer Program Does Job Better
First doctors, now lawyers. I can hear them now: “I didn’t go through all those years of school just to be replaced by a computer.”

As Watson bones up on his medical knowledge in hopes of giving doctors a helping hand, lawyers are becoming increasingly antsy over computer programs that are finding their way into the law firms–and doing something lawyers do but faster, better, and cheaper.

http://singularityhub.com/2010/02/11...odern-factory/

No Humans, Just Robots – Amazing Videos of the Modern Factory

Modern manufacturing isn’t based on human labor, it’s based on the robot. Still, most people cannot grasp the breadth of automation in factories. We still picture plants full of human workers toiling to make our cars and furniture, just as we imagine our meat comes from animals in a barn. The truth is much more awe-inspiring, perhaps even frightening. The factories of today have some human workers, but huge portions of assembly lines are 100% mechanized. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics expects automotive jobs to decline 18% by 2018 despite expected increases in production. Robots eliminate the need for more workers.

What this translates into, and currently thoroughly ignored, is that there will be a constant and increasingly strong headwind against aggregate demand while economic production continues to soar - resulting in a continuing disinflation with bouts of recessions if not depressions – and a constantly-growing proportion of people not participating in employment (including self-employed, my magic pony friends).

Currently, we are under the delusion of magical thinking that somehow, someway the private sector is going to come up with jobs - even though they'll increasingly be both fighting the headwind of decreasing aggregate demand and their own efforts at survival by cutting production costs through further automation.

Sure the GOP insane austerity and deficit-dumb thinking will greatly accelerate the plunge of the economy but Obama and the Dems are mouthing the same basic myths of private sector salvation and groveling at the feet of the nonexistent problems of federal deficits and debt at the expense of paying any attention to what is really going on. Their "muddling through" is only distracting us from recognizing the hidden beast that is coming.

I am actually more pessimistic that Brian's timetable. His forecast is based on the need to deal with a host of bad apples; mine is base on the understanding that the entire orchard is dying and no one currently cares to take notice.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Except 4T crises are never entirely about economics. We'll have this 4T until 2027 no matter how the economy performs.

I agree that they are more about politics than economics--politics and ways of thinking. Of course I do not agree about the other half.

I don't know why some people persist is saying 9-11 was the beginning of a 4T. It was a tragic event, sure. And it was used as an excuse for a very divisive, incompetent and unnecessary war (as well as another incompetent and arguably unnecessary war as well). But it had no effect on most of us, and produced zero 4T behavior by people or governments. It has virtually no consequence for the decisions that our country needs to make today, or the issues it faces. And although it might be a "possible" turning date (5 years within 2005), I think it shortens the length of the previous 3T too much, especially since 1984 was already too early in the cycle, and makes us too young for a turning shift.

And 9-11 was certainly nothing I didn't predict, or its consequences either.

Of course I do not agree about the other half

Fortunately, if we are still around and writing, this is one debate that can probably be resolved!

Although, I should add, there are some people who will debate anything, if actual events are not hard and fast enough to decide which turning they are.

I am actually more pessimistic than Brian's timetable. His forecast is based on the need to deal with a host of bad apples; mine is based on the understanding that the entire orchard is dying and no one currently cares to take notice.

I tend to agree with you playwrite.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

So David as "David" is expected to behave like this.

But The Rani is "a woman scorned."

I didn't read it that way, and I'm female besides.

No problem. "Female" biology is not a prerequisite for recognizing misogyny. (See earlier debate on abortion.)

Have a GREEATTT day!!

You too. Cheers.

OK, look. The PM's can cease. I don't care what the rumored background is between The Rani and Brian. I call BS when I see it. "a woman scorned" can be viewed no other way but within the context of a history of trivializing women. And because it was contrast to David the intended effect was to draw attention to gender. Best...

Just for clarification, I happen to be among the younger Boomer cohorts but not the youngest, and yes, that statement that the 4T can't end yet because I won't be 65 for ten years was illustrative. I meant, naturally, that everyone born in 1956 (including me) will not be 65 for ten years.

The two people who jumped on that are two people who have a personal feud with me, David because I had the gall to get upset when he repeatedly lied about my statements, and the Rani because of our personal history from years ago (and yes, she is the one who dumped me not vice-versa which makes it even weirder, but still true). Nobody else has jumped on the bandwagon, and I'm reasonably sure everyone else understood. If I were to die tomorrow, the 4T would still not be possible until the younger Boomers enter elderhood, and really not until the oldest Xers started to do so, even though I would not be entering elderhood myself. I may or may not be narcissistic as a person but that had nothing to do with what I was talking about and to attribute it as such is personal snark and nothing but.

Regarding the theory in general, I guess it's harder to understand than I realized. It seems pretty simple and straightforward to me: generations entering a new phase of life = turning change; turning change = national mood change; turning change = new childhood regime and new generation born. But I guess for a lot of people it gets mixed up and confused with all sorts of other things. The coming election is important as all elections are, but it is not a cusp election, it is an early-4T election. We have a long way to go yet, if the theory has any validity at all. It will not determine the 1T regime in any way, shape or form.

I suppose one reason it's hard to understand is because of the other things that happen in a Turning, especially a 2T or 4T. Maybe the idea that changes of the magnitude represented by the Constitution, or the 13th-15th Amendments, or the unionization of the workplace and regulation of the economy and superpower status, happen on a timetable driven by generations is counter-intuitive. But if the theory is correct, that's so. Over the course of this Crisis, we will be resolving issues that confront us and render our civic order unworkable. I've already stated repeatedly what I believe those issues to be. But we will do it over the whole course of the Crisis; we really can't do it yet because we're not ready to. As more Boomers enter elderhood, more Xers enter midlife, and more Millennials come of age, we will eventually reach a point when the tide shifts enough that we can. But that isn't going to be next year.