Originally Posted by Barbara

The damage for many was already done by Black Tuesday 1929. So, the ensuing financial disaster of 1929 on did not really have to hit "as hard" as the 1921 numbers did. The 1930 numbers reflect a fighter who receives the first of a series of final punches which flatten him as he goes down for the count and does not come back up. He's flattened so easily at the end because he's already been in there for 10 rounds getting steadily pelted.

My point was that (and I'm not necessarily saying we're in for another Depression) in 1930, and even 1931, Black Tuesday was seen as another bump in the road. Sure things had changed a little, but it wasn't universally recognized as anything significant at the time. I see the "We be 3T" mantra as similar posturing. On the economy, I have heard, here and elsewhere, people say, oh, this is milder than last time, it's nothing. (And Clinton saw himself as FDR on that, a blunder he would never recover from. He blew a lot of political capital on health care alone.)

We can't just assume that because the cataylst wasn't like 1860 that this wasn't the catalyst. I am more sure that it was, two years out, than I was one year out. (And I have a job now and didn't then.) Did the mood change here? Most certainly. Did it in 1773 and 1929? Yes, but just like here it wasn't all that dramatic of a change, or wasn't always seen as one.

You might be interested in the book I cited for that example, it's called Freedom from Fear by David Kennedy. A nice thorough tome, detailing the last Fourth Turning. I've found many other (potential) parallels, that one is the most relevant at the moment.

Originally Posted by Barbara

The damage for many was already done by Black Tuesday 1929. So, the ensuing financial disaster of 1929 on did not really have to hit "as hard" as the 1921 numbers did. The 1930 numbers reflect a fighter who receives the first of a series of final punches which flatten him as he goes down for the count and does not come back up. He's flattened so easily at the end because he's already been in there for 10 rounds getting steadily pelted.

My point was that (and I'm not necessarily saying we're in for another Depression) in 1930, and even 1931, Black Tuesday was seen as another bump in the road. Sure things had changed a little, but it wasn't universally recognized as anything significant at the time. I see the "We be 3T" mantra as similar posturing. On the economy, I have heard, here and elsewhere, people say, oh, this is milder than last time, it's nothing. (And Clinton saw himself as FDR on that, a blunder he would never recover from. He blew a lot of political capital on health care alone.)

We can't just assume that because the cataylst wasn't like 1860 that this wasn't the catalyst. I am more sure that it was, two years out, than I was one year out. (And I have a job now and didn't then.) Did the mood change here? Most certainly. Did it in 1773 and 1929? Yes, but just like here it wasn't all that dramatic of a change, or wasn't always seen as one.

You might be interested in the book I cited for that example, it's called Freedom from Fear by David Kennedy. A nice thorough tome, detailing the last Fourth Turning. I've found many other (potential) parallels, that one is the most relevant at the moment.

Yes, John, you are entirely justified IMO in your thinking. I appreciate how you and Sean both patiently elaborate your POV's further.

That book is on my list to read, thanks for bringing it to attention again, I must have missed it although I do remember now you referencing it somewhere. Thanks for taking my 'teach lecture' so graciously, too. :wink:

Yes, John, you are entirely justified IMO in your thinking. I appreciate how you and Sean both patiently elaborate your POV's further.

That book is on my list to read, thanks for bringing it to attention again, I must have missed it although I do remember now you referencing it somewhere. Thanks for taking my 'teach lecture' so graciously, too. :wink:

Originally Posted by Barbara

I have reflected elsewhere recently that present day reminds me of 1991 in many ways. Curious, did you, as an Xer experience any setbacks financially around then? Remember corporate downsizing and Mcjobs and Xers starting their own career ventiures out of frustration with a job market that was in the midst of permanently losing certain jobs / inventing others, and employers stubbornly hesitant to hire? I know I recall many an Xer refering to that time and the "welcoming" (not) into adulthood it gave them.

Was one of those posters you, old (T4T) timer? :wink:

No, I didn't post about that back in '97. I stayed pretty theoretical. As for the early '90's: I graduated from college in the Spring of '91 (on the five-year-plan :oops: ). I got a job selling capital equipment to food processing companies straight out and did terribly. I was willingly reassigned to cover the California territory for them (I drove across the county in Oct. '91 -that was fun) and settled near San Jose (which I am still only a twenty minute drive from). New York was in a recession in the fall of '91 but California was not. Not yet. California ended up getting hit later and much harder. But I did pretty well anyway, due to a combination of dumb luck and determination.

Nowadays, I am a Master's degree and a new industry away from those days. I have been talking to loads of folks out here in Silicon Valley about the difference between this downturn and the one around 1989-94 (those were bad years for the valley). This is far, far, far, far worse. Heck, I'm losing customers left and right (as in they're going out of business). The only thing really hot right now (by personal, anecdotal observation) is Homeland Security stuff.

I'm glad I sold my house and became a renter. Now when are those housing prices going to reflect the unemployment and higher mortgage rates????

Originally Posted by Barbara

I have reflected elsewhere recently that present day reminds me of 1991 in many ways. Curious, did you, as an Xer experience any setbacks financially around then? Remember corporate downsizing and Mcjobs and Xers starting their own career ventiures out of frustration with a job market that was in the midst of permanently losing certain jobs / inventing others, and employers stubbornly hesitant to hire? I know I recall many an Xer refering to that time and the "welcoming" (not) into adulthood it gave them.

Was one of those posters you, old (T4T) timer? :wink:

No, I didn't post about that back in '97. I stayed pretty theoretical. As for the early '90's: I graduated from college in the Spring of '91 (on the five-year-plan :oops: ). I got a job selling capital equipment to food processing companies straight out and did terribly. I was willingly reassigned to cover the California territory for them (I drove across the county in Oct. '91 -that was fun) and settled near San Jose (which I am still only a twenty minute drive from). New York was in a recession in the fall of '91 but California was not. Not yet. California ended up getting hit later and much harder. But I did pretty well anyway, due to a combination of dumb luck and determination.

Nowadays, I am a Master's degree and a new industry away from those days. I have been talking to loads of folks out here in Silicon Valley about the difference between this downturn and the one around 1989-94 (those were bad years for the valley). This is far, far, far, far worse. Heck, I'm losing customers left and right (as in they're going out of business). The only thing really hot right now (by personal, anecdotal observation) is Homeland Security stuff.

I'm glad I sold my house and became a renter. Now when are those housing prices going to reflect the unemployment and higher mortgage rates????

Originally Posted by Barbara

I'd actually cling to 911 as the catalyst, except that (and I believe you have posted similar doubts, though not as strong, as you are agnostic like I once was and probably should be again) I truly think we are in for a much worse catalytic event that will dwarf 911.

We almost certainly are in for a much worse event or events but that has nothing to do with whether 911 was the catalyst or not. Did not more catastrophic events follow Black Tuesday and the Boston Tea Party? Worsening conditions is the normal trend in a Crisis. The catalyst is simply the point in time at which the mood changes; no more, no less. The severity of the event relative to other Crisis events is not part of the calculation. Nor is the event's relationship or lack thereof to those other Crisis events.

Originally Posted by Barbara

I'd actually cling to 911 as the catalyst, except that (and I believe you have posted similar doubts, though not as strong, as you are agnostic like I once was and probably should be again) I truly think we are in for a much worse catalytic event that will dwarf 911.

We almost certainly are in for a much worse event or events but that has nothing to do with whether 911 was the catalyst or not. Did not more catastrophic events follow Black Tuesday and the Boston Tea Party? Worsening conditions is the normal trend in a Crisis. The catalyst is simply the point in time at which the mood changes; no more, no less. The severity of the event relative to other Crisis events is not part of the calculation. Nor is the event's relationship or lack thereof to those other Crisis events.

Originally Posted by Barbara

Yes, John, you are entirely justified IMO in your thinking. I appreciate how you and Sean both patiently elaborate your POV's further.

Well, mine is still coming into focus. The thing that's amazed me the most in the past year, since discovering this board, is how much I've learned about all this. I'm sure I'll learn more.

As for the early 1990s - I went along with tagging the President as "George Herbert Hoover Bush" but I was in college so the economy didn't affect me too much. Of course, he didn't lose because of the economy per se, but because his opponents paid more attention to it than he did.

Originally Posted by Barbara

Yes, John, you are entirely justified IMO in your thinking. I appreciate how you and Sean both patiently elaborate your POV's further.

Well, mine is still coming into focus. The thing that's amazed me the most in the past year, since discovering this board, is how much I've learned about all this. I'm sure I'll learn more.

As for the early 1990s - I went along with tagging the President as "George Herbert Hoover Bush" but I was in college so the economy didn't affect me too much. Of course, he didn't lose because of the economy per se, but because his opponents paid more attention to it than he did.

Originally Posted by John Taber 1972

As for the early 1990s - I went along with tagging the President as "George Herbert Hoover Bush" but I was in college so the economy didn't affect me too much. Of course, he didn't lose because of the economy per se, but because his opponents paid more attention to it than he did.

He lost because he broke his "No New Tax Pledge" without so much as a single veto, and that tax pledge was the only reason the empty suit even managed to win the Republican nomination, much less the election, back in 1988 in the first place. I suspect it still would have been close, but there was no way he was going to win anything after alienating his own base like that, and properly so.

Originally Posted by John Taber 1972

As for the early 1990s - I went along with tagging the President as "George Herbert Hoover Bush" but I was in college so the economy didn't affect me too much. Of course, he didn't lose because of the economy per se, but because his opponents paid more attention to it than he did.

He lost because he broke his "No New Tax Pledge" without so much as a single veto, and that tax pledge was the only reason the empty suit even managed to win the Republican nomination, much less the election, back in 1988 in the first place. I suspect it still would have been close, but there was no way he was going to win anything after alienating his own base like that, and properly so.

Originally Posted by Sean Love

The only thing really hot right now (by personal, anecdotal observation) is Homeland Security stuff.

And homeland security (no Federal dollars, hence the lowercase letters) is at least partially responsible for what I'm doing at work. Seriously, GIS could be to this 4T what the telegraph was to the Civil War or nuclear power to World War II - and it's good for a lot more than precision bombing.

Originally Posted by Sean Love

The only thing really hot right now (by personal, anecdotal observation) is Homeland Security stuff.

And homeland security (no Federal dollars, hence the lowercase letters) is at least partially responsible for what I'm doing at work. Seriously, GIS could be to this 4T what the telegraph was to the Civil War or nuclear power to World War II - and it's good for a lot more than precision bombing.

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

He lost because he broke his "No New Tax Pledge" without so much as a single veto, and that tax pledge was the only reason the empty suit even managed to win the Republican nomination, much less the election, back in 1988 in the first place. I suspect it still would have been close, but there was no way he was going to win anything after alienating his own base like that, and properly so.

That too. I just don't think the economic doldrums per se brought him down. Clinton came in and tried too hard to be FDR (and for that matter, JFK, though he had some success there) with the "Hundred Days" etc. He came off to me, in the end, as Nixon and/or Coolidge.

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

He lost because he broke his "No New Tax Pledge" without so much as a single veto, and that tax pledge was the only reason the empty suit even managed to win the Republican nomination, much less the election, back in 1988 in the first place. I suspect it still would have been close, but there was no way he was going to win anything after alienating his own base like that, and properly so.

That too. I just don't think the economic doldrums per se brought him down. Clinton came in and tried too hard to be FDR (and for that matter, JFK, though he had some success there) with the "Hundred Days" etc. He came off to me, in the end, as Nixon and/or Coolidge.

Well, I may as well announce it here. Sean's thread deserves the concession speech, especially since I gave an impassioned "We be 3T" post. :wink:

I'm back to being totally agnostic on the issue. One or two may have noticed I changed my tagline. Did that last night, but was too tired to write this then. Up until leaving here last year, I was agnostic, basing my position on trying to stay true to the S&H retrospective part of the theorum. Funny how being away a year can mold a POV, though. When I returned, I was flush with worldy ignorance of being a T4T meglomaniac. 8) I guess that honeymoon period has worn off now...

Also, I've now faced that part of me just does not want to believe that we are going to go through for a second time in my lifetime such a thoroughly wrenching era. Could we at least add one more turning to this theory to offset increased life span, or must we endure reruns in this arena, too? (joking sarcasm intended on that) :wink:

Something in you guys' last couple of posts of today, though, seals my decision to quit promoting the 3T continuum. While I stop just a wee bit short of actively promoting the 4T one as of now, I do recognize the odds. Were I more competitive, I suppose, I'd leap off the agnostic fence instead of sitting here with my legs dangling on the 4T side.

Although Seadog is not the first by far to present the mood change, that last comment of his on this subject was where I saw it clearly enough to say, yeah, looks like it to me, too. It was the timing, I suppose. :wink:

Thanks to all for the interplay. We are all learning here, I guess. (I would add the oops emoticon here except I'm not the least bit embarrassed. Call it the Silent in me....) 8)

Well, I may as well announce it here. Sean's thread deserves the concession speech, especially since I gave an impassioned "We be 3T" post. :wink:

I'm back to being totally agnostic on the issue. One or two may have noticed I changed my tagline. Did that last night, but was too tired to write this then. Up until leaving here last year, I was agnostic, basing my position on trying to stay true to the S&H retrospective part of the theorum. Funny how being away a year can mold a POV, though. When I returned, I was flush with worldy ignorance of being a T4T meglomaniac. 8) I guess that honeymoon period has worn off now...

Also, I've now faced that part of me just does not want to believe that we are going to go through for a second time in my lifetime such a thoroughly wrenching era. Could we at least add one more turning to this theory to offset increased life span, or must we endure reruns in this arena, too? (joking sarcasm intended on that) :wink:

Something in you guys' last couple of posts of today, though, seals my decision to quit promoting the 3T continuum. While I stop just a wee bit short of actively promoting the 4T one as of now, I do recognize the odds. Were I more competitive, I suppose, I'd leap off the agnostic fence instead of sitting here with my legs dangling on the 4T side.

Although Seadog is not the first by far to present the mood change, that last comment of his on this subject was where I saw it clearly enough to say, yeah, looks like it to me, too. It was the timing, I suppose. :wink:

Thanks to all for the interplay. We are all learning here, I guess. (I would add the oops emoticon here except I'm not the least bit embarrassed. Call it the Silent in me....) 8)

Originally Posted by Barbara

Something in you guys' last couple of posts of today, though, seals my decision to quit promoting the 3T continuum. While I stop just a wee bit short of actively promoting the 4T one as of now, I do recognize the odds. Were I more competitive, I suppose, I'd leap off the agnostic fence instead of sitting here with my legs dangling on the 4T side.

:lol: I think we are still in the very last gasps of the 3T BUT it really is a moot point because if we aren't actually 4T now, we will be shortly, and if a turning boundry is as muddy as a generational one, then our grandkids will undoubtedly be arguing over it more than we are. 8)

Originally Posted by Barbara

Something in you guys' last couple of posts of today, though, seals my decision to quit promoting the 3T continuum. While I stop just a wee bit short of actively promoting the 4T one as of now, I do recognize the odds. Were I more competitive, I suppose, I'd leap off the agnostic fence instead of sitting here with my legs dangling on the 4T side.

:lol: I think we are still in the very last gasps of the 3T BUT it really is a moot point because if we aren't actually 4T now, we will be shortly, and if a turning boundry is as muddy as a generational one, then our grandkids will undoubtedly be arguing over it more than we are. 8)

Originally Posted by Zola

if a turning boundry is as muddy as a generational one, then our grandkids will undoubtedly be arguing over it more than we are. 8)

Too true. I'm sure if The Wonk reads your post, she will offer her Linda as proof, already! :wink:

BTW, your amazing new T'ag-site is ZO cool! Hours (well, several minutes, anyway) of parody fun! Every one should check it out. I love it; heck, I'm infected now.....

The only T you fools better worry about is MR. T :o

:lol: :lol: :lol: :wink:

Originally Posted by Zola

if a turning boundry is as muddy as a generational one, then our grandkids will undoubtedly be arguing over it more than we are. 8)

Too true. I'm sure if The Wonk reads your post, she will offer her Linda as proof, already! :wink:

BTW, your amazing new T'ag-site is ZO cool! Hours (well, several minutes, anyway) of parody fun! Every one should check it out. I love it; heck, I'm infected now.....

The only T you fools better worry about is MR. T :o

:lol: :lol: :lol: :wink:

Zola wrote:

:lol: I think we are still in the very last gasps of the 3T BUT it really is a moot point because if we aren't actually 4T now, we will be shortly, and if a turning boundry is as muddy as a generational one, then our grandkids will undoubtedly be arguing over it more than we are. 8)

I like that.

Zola wrote:

:lol: I think we are still in the very last gasps of the 3T BUT it really is a moot point because if we aren't actually 4T now, we will be shortly, and if a turning boundry is as muddy as a generational one, then our grandkids will undoubtedly be arguing over it more than we are. 8)

I like that.

I'm all for being 3T/4T agnostic. We're all froggies in the water waiting for that boiling point to arrive. Right, Croaker? :wink: