if Trump goes to a literal prison, then Trump news is over, and the dumb Trump mob (the Republican party) loses coordination and falls apart.
The age of the Democrat uniparty is here. All dissenters will suffer Trump's fate just as Mark Levin predicted in American Marxism.
No, because no matter the ‘dissent’, it’s not common for ‘dissenters’ to be stealing boxes of top secret documents from Uncle Sam. Besides, Trump has most of those stuffed away in his bathroom. There are no longer enough to go around. So, you’re all good. : )
Trump’s bizarrely egotistic allusion of a contemporary Orange Jesus who is suffering for your (ajax’s) supposed dissent aside, Levin has assumed that his audience is comprised of similarly egotistical idiots who will swallow any lie in order to preserve their supposed identity.
I'd be inclined to say that this Strauss-Howe cycle theory was nonsense, but business cycles are real, and Strauss-Howe could conceivably have identified something analogous at some more abstract level. I'm still not going to buy any fixed time period for the cycles, or expect any predictive power from the theory.
A big part of my professional work is in the category of "dynamical systems", which means that I study mathematical games in which a bunch of numerical variables change over time under rules I invent (or copy from someone else). The rules should be as simple as possible to define, but have complex implications. They can then provide simplified but hopefully instructive models for, oh, practically anything: chemical reactions, star formation, ecosystems, weather ...
A popular sub-genre of these mathematical games is "driven dissipative systems", in which the rules imply a tendency for everything to settle down to some fixed set of values (dissipation), but the rules also include some regular or irregular pattern of disturbances (driving) that tend to stop things from settling down. It's not uncommon for a driven dissipative system to have a limit cycle: it doesn't settle down to any one fixed set of values, but it tends to converge onto a particular track through the ranges of values, and then keep following that track around over and over again. It might still veer off track occasionally or lurch back and forth a bit, but the limit cycle is a clearly recognisable pattern to which the system generally tends to conform.
The fact that limit cycles are a common phenomenon in driven dissipative systems is no deep mathematical mystery. Among rule sets that tend to make things settle down, the simplest scenario is for them to settle down to one point in the space of possible values. That ends the game, and it's boring, so we don't study such systems so much. The next simplest scenario is for things to settle down onto a one-dimensional closed curve through that space. Adding more complexity could have things settle down onto some two-dimensional surface, but then they would wander around randomly over this surface and it might well be hard to even notice that they had settled down at all. So limit cycles are the patterns you're likely to notice, if any patterns exist.
A lot of economics is about modelling economies as dynamical systems; I don't do that, but economists do. Up to a point it makes great sense, but it's hard because real economic systems never have permanent rules. You can try to bring the changing rules into the dynamical system, representing them with additional variables that can change under meta-rules, but before you reach a reliable model for any real economics, you may well have a dynamical system that is too large and complex to analyse. Even worse, the large meta-system may have so many rules that you don't have enough reliable data to be able to say which particular forms of rules would accurately represent the real thing that you're trying to model. So you either give up, or you take wild guesses about most of your rules---and at that point you might be wearing a white coat and running a supercomputer but you might as well just be puffing your pipe and pompously speculating.
So, anyway, there probably really are some cyclically tendencies in cultural history. Stuff tends to happen on all kinds of time scales, and the time from birth to sexual maturity in humans is a time scale that could plausibly play some role in human collective behaviour. With rare exceptions like the Baby Boom, though, generations aren't normally synchronised so that the generational clock starts in one particular span of just a few years. People are born every year. And it's not clear to me that individualism and collective identity are real and measurable things, even to the squishy degree to which things like inflation rates and GDPs are real and measurable. If you polled random Americans over the 1950's to 1980's, you might well find things that fit well along an individual-collective axis, but I'm not convinced that other places or times would all have that same axis.
The big factor in economics that is hard to model is technological development. New technology keeps changing the rules, and if we knew how it was going to change the rules, we'd be inventing that stuff already now and getting rich. From the 1960's into the 1990's there was a long technological lull, between TV and the internet, and between jet airliners and global warming. I remember it seeming like a big deal when phones went to keypads from dials. Things have picked up again since then. Insofar as current feelings that we're rushing into something aren't just illusions, I think they probably have more to do with us being in unprecedented technological circumstances than with us being at some particular stage in any permanent cycle.
if Trump goes to a literal prison, then Trump news is over, and the dumb Trump mob (the Republican party) loses coordination and falls apart.
The age of the Democrat uniparty is here. All dissenters will suffer Trump's fate just as Mark Levin predicted in American Marxism.
Your worship of the tangerine palpatine aside, can you not see it’s the billionaire class that’s more of a threat to us than the bogeyman of American marxism? You literally have entrenched men and women making decisions through their puppets that make your liberty irrelevant.
PG wrote:A lot of economics is about modelling economies as dynamical systems; I don't do that, but economists do. Up to a point it makes great sense, but it's hard because real economic systems never have permanent rules. You can try to bring the changing rules into the dynamical system, representing them with additional variables that can change under meta-rules, but before you reach a reliable model for any real economics, you may well have a dynamical system that is too large and complex to analyse.
A unique kind of changing rule in a dynamic system that involves people is that people can change their behavior based on the model's output which invalidates the model. In contrast, the one thing a system of equations that describe the movement of steam through a absurdly complicated system of pipes has going for it is that no individual water droplet will review the output of the model and change it's behavior based on that.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
The age of the Democrat uniparty is here. All dissenters will suffer Trump's fate just as Mark Levin predicted in American Marxism.
I hope Republicans suffer some fate for their unilateral support of a scoundrel. They have counted on fooling people for so long that it would be nice if most people saw through their grift and lies.
The age of the Democrat uniparty is here. All dissenters will suffer Trump's fate just as Mark Levin predicted in American Marxism.
I hope Republicans suffer some fate for their unilateral support of a scoundrel. They have counted on fooling people for so long that it would be nice if most people saw through their grift and lies.
The DOJ, media, and FBI have been hard at work on this for you for the past 8 years. I'm not sure you'll get that robust standard of living at the economic floor you've always wanted though. The CCP aren't the most generous of masters.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
The DOJ, media, and FBI have been hard at work on this for you for the past 8 years. I'm not sure you'll get that robust standard of living at the economic floor you've always wanted though. The CCP aren't the most generous of masters.
