I have tracked this analysis for years and find it helpful like other mostly economists who try to understand long booms. I think people are not seeing how our suite of transformative technologies are about to hit the updraft in our time, the next 25 years.
I am an Economics Professor at Houston Community College, and have been following Kondratieff as well as Hyman Minsky's Financial Instability Hypothesis for some time. The two are of course linked -- Minsky's work has a great deal to do with the cyclical financial aspect of the funding of technologies driving Kondratieff Cycles. The technologies suggested for the next major investment cycle have been Green energy, bio-technology and gene editing for healthcare, but the current and likely main candidate is Artificial Intelligence.
I have tracked Strauss and Howe since their first big book on Generations came out in 1992. ( I wrote my first book review on it.) They have influenced my thinking for a long time, but their analysis is insufficient, in my opinion. These reinventions are not just about the right constellation of generations but about a new "generation" of technologies, so to speak. This new piece by me reflects that dimension. I will be doing another piece on "why 80 years" coming up that lays that all down better, as well as gives credit to Strauss and Howe.
I agree! The pandemic shifted thinking around the world that will never go back to the way it was. It also seemed to connect us more deeply as a planet with people using video chat to communicate globally like never before. 😊 Which, hopefully, makes working together to solve problems more likely.
Great writing, Peter! Glad to see the old S-curve in operation. Your 80 year cycle is the point at which the last members of a generation who can remember the old paradigm are dying off, creating a clearing/niche for new thinking. Big change happens BETWEEN generations, not within them. Wars can also be disruptors of the status quo.
I appreciate this work. Another interesting source that is relevant to your writings is Carlota Perez: https://carlotaperez.org/ and her views of technological cycles.
Yes, her insights play into the "why every 80 years" part of this story. I know her, and have interviewed her in depth. The tech cycles play into this in ways that the folks who only focus on generational cycles don't normally see. So I need to lay this all out in a separate essay. Too much for this one.
Wow, such a great article showing the repeating pattern of America's history - really enjoyed this. It makes sense. But I noticed a pattern you didn't mention - each 80 years there was a major war and a president was assassinated (except George). Hmmm. Seems like we should we be doing something to avoid this or is it seemingly unavoidable, just part of the pattern of nation-making and the world shifting to a new paradigm? (I hope not! 🥺)
Can't wait to read the next essay - keep 'em coming, Peter! We need these. 🙂
I don't think we need a war for this to happen. But in the past these conflicts of interests did erupt in them. I will address this more in a future essay that goes into why 80 years?
The past booms of this country primarily benefited white people, mostly men. I’d love to see discussion around how the next boom can bring along as many people as possible. I hope you’ll be featuring women and people of color in this series so we can hear from a wide range of perspectives.
really, starting in 1965 forward, after spending trillions of dollars on education and welfare, with decades of quotas, and three generations that have each changed the culture to be more tolerant and inclusive, due to the fact that every aspect of our society doesn't align with a population distribution, you still think blacks, hispanics/latins, asians, and women can't achieve what they want if they do the work, take the risks, make the sacrifices, learn from their losses, and strive past the haters?
i think they can and point to the many blacks, hispanics/latinos (not as much progress as other groups), asians (also not as much progress) and women in all aspects of our society that are leaders from admirals, to ceo's, to athletes, to politicians, to scientists, etc.
not saying it is perfect. not saying improvement is needed. saying, lots of blacks, hispanics/latinos, asians, and women will make the journey...
Yes, I did not get into the "why 80 years" part of the story since that alone will probably take a whole essay. Also, the 80 years is not just rooted in the generational insights. There are also other cycles driving it, one related to new technologies, and another related to long-cycle economic booms. That's why I need to devote another essay to just that concept of why 80 years. Soon.
This is an intriguing thought process that is well stated. Some of my thinking is similar. I intend to read more of your work to understand it in more detail.
But, it begs the question about Curtis Yarvin’s theories of a tech company startup with a CEO who has oligarchical domination of America as promulgated by Peter Thiel and Elon Musk. In Yarvin’s vision, Trump is but a disposable pawn notwithstanding his Roy Cohn training as a feral animal who viciously defends his turf by enticing then annihilating everyone around him.
How does Yarvin’s vision fit into the next 25 years? Or, does it?
I know of Yarvin and his general political perspective but I don't know enough to speculate on whether there is any overlap. I come at this from a very different place than him but I'm open to learning more.
Thanks for responding. I’ll see if I can send links to recent articles about him, Thiel and Musk. Musk appears to be on the way out, no surprise, but his influence will remain.
I assume you are familiar with Kondratieff. for example: https://www.strike.money/stock-market/kondratieff-analysis
I have tracked this analysis for years and find it helpful like other mostly economists who try to understand long booms. I think people are not seeing how our suite of transformative technologies are about to hit the updraft in our time, the next 25 years.
I am an Economics Professor at Houston Community College, and have been following Kondratieff as well as Hyman Minsky's Financial Instability Hypothesis for some time. The two are of course linked -- Minsky's work has a great deal to do with the cyclical financial aspect of the funding of technologies driving Kondratieff Cycles. The technologies suggested for the next major investment cycle have been Green energy, bio-technology and gene editing for healthcare, but the current and likely main candidate is Artificial Intelligence.
Were you inspired by Howe & Strauss's The Fourth Turning? https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-fourth-turning-what-the-cycles-of-history-tell-us-about-america-s-next-rendezvous-with-destiny-william-strauss/7110342?ean=9780767900461&next=t
even more current: https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-fourth-turning-is-here-what-the-seasons-of-history-tell-us-about-how-and-when-this-crisis-will-end/18867805?ean=9781982173739&next=t
I have tracked Strauss and Howe since their first big book on Generations came out in 1992. ( I wrote my first book review on it.) They have influenced my thinking for a long time, but their analysis is insufficient, in my opinion. These reinventions are not just about the right constellation of generations but about a new "generation" of technologies, so to speak. This new piece by me reflects that dimension. I will be doing another piece on "why 80 years" coming up that lays that all down better, as well as gives credit to Strauss and Howe.
COVID-19 pandemic was the thing that killed the old identity. The blow that ensured it would not recover as a meta-system.
I agree! The pandemic shifted thinking around the world that will never go back to the way it was. It also seemed to connect us more deeply as a planet with people using video chat to communicate globally like never before. 😊 Which, hopefully, makes working together to solve problems more likely.
Connected in many ways, but also made divisions much deeper, whether organically or not.
yes, i now know the CDC does not deserve blanket trust...
Nor does the media, or academia, or your neighbors.
i trust some of my neighbors a lot. they have earned it
I had a neighbor tell me the unvaccinated should be turned away from the hospitals (she knew I was unvaccinated.)
Great writing, Peter! Glad to see the old S-curve in operation. Your 80 year cycle is the point at which the last members of a generation who can remember the old paradigm are dying off, creating a clearing/niche for new thinking. Big change happens BETWEEN generations, not within them. Wars can also be disruptors of the status quo.
I appreciate this work. Another interesting source that is relevant to your writings is Carlota Perez: https://carlotaperez.org/ and her views of technological cycles.
Yes, her insights play into the "why every 80 years" part of this story. I know her, and have interviewed her in depth. The tech cycles play into this in ways that the folks who only focus on generational cycles don't normally see. So I need to lay this all out in a separate essay. Too much for this one.
I look forward to that piece!
Your work reminds me very much of the writings and lectures of Ray Kurzweil.
Wow, such a great article showing the repeating pattern of America's history - really enjoyed this. It makes sense. But I noticed a pattern you didn't mention - each 80 years there was a major war and a president was assassinated (except George). Hmmm. Seems like we should we be doing something to avoid this or is it seemingly unavoidable, just part of the pattern of nation-making and the world shifting to a new paradigm? (I hope not! 🥺)
Can't wait to read the next essay - keep 'em coming, Peter! We need these. 🙂
I don't think we need a war for this to happen. But in the past these conflicts of interests did erupt in them. I will address this more in a future essay that goes into why 80 years?
define major. do you mean US wars? which wars specifically?
The past booms of this country primarily benefited white people, mostly men. I’d love to see discussion around how the next boom can bring along as many people as possible. I hope you’ll be featuring women and people of color in this series so we can hear from a wide range of perspectives.
can't we just push for merit? doesn't that take care of the problem...
No, because sexism and racism are structural in our country, woven into the very fabric of our institutions and culture.
really, starting in 1965 forward, after spending trillions of dollars on education and welfare, with decades of quotas, and three generations that have each changed the culture to be more tolerant and inclusive, due to the fact that every aspect of our society doesn't align with a population distribution, you still think blacks, hispanics/latins, asians, and women can't achieve what they want if they do the work, take the risks, make the sacrifices, learn from their losses, and strive past the haters?
i think they can and point to the many blacks, hispanics/latinos (not as much progress as other groups), asians (also not as much progress) and women in all aspects of our society that are leaders from admirals, to ceo's, to athletes, to politicians, to scientists, etc.
not saying it is perfect. not saying improvement is needed. saying, lots of blacks, hispanics/latinos, asians, and women will make the journey...
Diversity, equity and inclusion is a racist agenda that wants you to only see color, not character.
On this subject, I highly recommend "The Fourth Turning Is Here" by Neil Howe
did we read the same essay? not just you. several people have referenced sources cited by Mr. Leyden in his reports...
apparently, yes
This is great thinking and it makes sense!
This 80 yr cycle invokes “The Fourth Turning” concept of history, posed by Strauss & Howe.
I see now that others have referred to The Fourth Turning ….and that you, Peter Leyden, are deeply familiar with it.
Yes, I did not get into the "why 80 years" part of the story since that alone will probably take a whole essay. Also, the 80 years is not just rooted in the generational insights. There are also other cycles driving it, one related to new technologies, and another related to long-cycle economic booms. That's why I need to devote another essay to just that concept of why 80 years. Soon.
United Nations out, Ministry of Butterscotch Pudding in!
This is an intriguing thought process that is well stated. Some of my thinking is similar. I intend to read more of your work to understand it in more detail.
But, it begs the question about Curtis Yarvin’s theories of a tech company startup with a CEO who has oligarchical domination of America as promulgated by Peter Thiel and Elon Musk. In Yarvin’s vision, Trump is but a disposable pawn notwithstanding his Roy Cohn training as a feral animal who viciously defends his turf by enticing then annihilating everyone around him.
How does Yarvin’s vision fit into the next 25 years? Or, does it?
I know of Yarvin and his general political perspective but I don't know enough to speculate on whether there is any overlap. I come at this from a very different place than him but I'm open to learning more.
Thanks for responding. I’ll see if I can send links to recent articles about him, Thiel and Musk. Musk appears to be on the way out, no surprise, but his influence will remain.