Today is14 May 2022. One year has passed since this lecture. George Friedman's analysis has been spot on as to where we would be. I hope, like many of us, that our Society will absorb the crises of our time and emerge in tact. At present, little is certain.
Very interesting talk. It's always good to let the experts go on at length to explain themselves. Sometimes you learn interesting stuff. Not sure I agree with some of his conclusions and projections, but it's all well reasoned and food for thought for me.
Love the facial expressions of the moderator every time GF suggests that people have a problem with federal govt and its experts calling all the shots.
It is also true that the Supreme Court had to initially fight to have its powers relevant, thus in the initial years they had to decide cases and declare it was THEIR job to tell us what the law is and says and means. And to clarify that there were three branches of power, etc etc... that means initially it wasn't given to them by the other two powers, as it is now, they have to constantly struggle to be relevant, all three branches.
There ARE three branches: Unfortunately, the courts are not one of them. Our "mixed form of government" was based on Cicero's blueprint from "De Republica". He called for a State to be tripartite and composed of elements of all three classical forms of government: Monarchy, aristocracy and republic. (These three had a bad habit of decaying into their mutant versions: Tyranny, oligarchy and democracy.) To keep that from happening, and to preserve the best elements of all three, he suggested a three branch government. The Founding Fathers in America followed this template, creating the Presidency (based on monarchy), the senate (based on aristocracy) and the House of Representatives (based on republic). The courts were not (and never were) a "branch of government". Both John Stuart Mill and Montesquieu place the courts under the Executive Branch. Which is how the Founders in America saw it. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg talks about how, in the 1850s, no one saw the courts as a "branch of government". See her speech on Judah Benjamin. She writes: "In 1853, Benjamin declined the nomination of President Millard Fillmore to become an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Just elected U.S. Senator from Louisiana, Benjamin preferred to retain his First Branch post. His choice suggests that the U.S. Supreme Court had not yet become the co-equal Branch it is today." . . . So the concept of Congress being "bicameral" and made up of both Senate and the House, and a Supreme Court being a "branch of government" is a 20th Century fiction.
He said the Iraq war but you could make the case that all of America regime change land wars fought since the end of WW2 were fought by “experts” and failed. The origins of Vietnam war ” best and brightest” now you can add failed 20 year Afghanistan war. In which the Pentagon best and brightest will go up to Congress for more money and say oh we’re training the Afghan army to fight, they’ll be ready soon. The withdrawal of Afghanistan war was even more humiliating in the Vietnam War.
Japan should have been in depression for decades due to their poor demographics. But they sorted out a Post Growth system that keeps them from having to face their demographic problems.
There was a conflict. It began in the 1990's, was caused by the USA, and the USA won. This time around it was economic rather than military and Japan surrendered without firing s shot. Clue: Plaza Accords.
How was Climate Change not mentioned? What impact will food shortages, increased frequency/severity of natural disasters, climate refugees, etc. have on this 50 year cycle?
With how the election turned out this year, my guess is Friedman was correct. This presidency will see many of the Reagan-Era economics used while many policies from the past are passed in legislation. I do believe that 2028 will see a presidency better than any candidate we've had in the past nine years, and I hold out hope that the cycle will be one to be proud of.
I'm a long term follower and fan of George, and my criticism is minor: he makes use of a cultural bias, which is to maintain a pretense of neutrality, by use of the technique of Critique (and pilpul) by using the mother's method of saying it will be ok. It's not going to be ok. This allows the speaker to gain attention, but not to motivate people to change their behavior.
As someone who grew up in a extremely abusive family but in a very nice area… the first thing I thought was… All the drunk parents are going to go to war on their kids-
George always revisits the past as if Presidents call the shots. He always omits discussing the Fed Reserve and the oil based currency of the US. It’s a rhetorical tactic that works on the general public and half read fools graduating from intellectually hollow tertiary schools. Thanks for YOUR history lesson George but your OMISSIONS especially those about those shyster Fijians that only care about their faith, being hospitable and having enough coconuts for them and anyone else that asks. Finally George, choosing to describe the government as “complex” isn’t lost when you should be describing them as “complicated”
Pretty simple, cut government, run budget surpluses, lower corporate taxes and cut regulations, once the national debt gets under control, slash taxes more.
Your receipt is how implode debt. What you are proposing is what USA doing since Reagan - debt imploded, Huge corporations not pay federal taxes at all, non elected trillionareslike Bezos and Koch have tremendous chunk of power and looting USA. In 1958 in USA corporate marginal tax was 90% - highest ever, that was also the most prosperous time ever, cause corporations evade this tax by reinvesting in themselfes.
The captions embedded in the video are amazingly bad, it would be better to just have a message noting that youtube has an option for captions, which are much better.
@@johngiesbers9811 This rhythm may be the transition to a new section of the poem/song. We've never had a demographic structure of the sort we're experiencing.
@@oats6452 we don’t have to have the same demographic structure . We r n a 4th Turning and it is playing out, in general terms, just like other 4th Turnings. 80 years ago (1940) we were in Great Depression and WW2. 80 years before that (1860) we were in American civil war. And about 80 years before that (1776) we were in American Revolutionary War. In 4th Turnings we lose faith in our institutions, democracy is threatened, and we tear things down. And apparently as a country, we always defend democracy, even if it takes a war to do it.
@@johngiesbers9811We can't know that. Again, we've never had this demographic structure. Basing a hypothesis that inverted demographics may have a significant impact on generational threads isn't outlandish. It's an exciting event for anyone interested in this subject.
Not sure we're close enough to a therapy to delay and/or reverse senescence to bet our economic future on it in the same way we were close to semi-conductor breakthroughs in the 60 and 70's that allowed us to build our economic growth around computation. It's not for a lack of capital, though. It's a just a much more difficult problem. Who was it that said you can't solve problems with the same thinking that created them?
Medical tech is a need, but our more immediate need may be replacement for labor as we expand demand, on shore manufacturing, and reduce population. So machine learning and robots, which have been increasing in capability rapidly over the past 10 years, much as the microchip was in the 10 years before Reagan and the subsequent boom of microelectronics impact. Self driving trucks, taxis, farm and construction equipment, etc.
14:20 - 15:04 - 15:49 - 1 16:09 - the crisis of the 1970s'[appears to] ends with _________ [Rise in private borrowing that produces the GREATER DEPRESSION of 2008]
USA already officially(!) lost 10 times more people dead from Corona-virus then in all Vietnam War. Unoficially USA lost almost 15 times more then all american KIA in Vietnam because conservatives in red states (and Cuomo) lowered paper records to hide actual horrible numbers, also a lot of people die from consequences of corona, (like stroke, clots, heart attack) yet officially not counted down as virus victims. Thus why casualties of Vietnam War look dwarfed compared to WW2 or Corona losses.
[omG. What happened to Mr. Friedman? In 2015 on the Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs he looked brilliant, young and fresh, so to say. Now one can see an old man full of alarming thoughts about the future.]
35:00-totally misunderstands the 3/5 compromise, which was about representation in Congress and the apportionment of direct taxes, NOT about degrees of humanity. Terrible mistake on Friedman’s part.
Yes that’s what it was for. Remember, the make up of Congress is decided by the number of full persons living in a state. The slave population would be counted but each would be considered 3/5 of a person. Ergo legal distinction of personhood the why doesn’t matter.
@@williamkline7922 NO!!! The 3/5 Compromise was a definition in law of how certain governmental functions will be apportioned. It was not a statement on "personhood" in terms of the value of one person versus another. Everybody complains about and misunderstands the 3/5 apportionment for voting, but nobody mentions the 3/5 also applied to taxation. As far as "personhood," in slave areas the slave counted for nearly -0- as a person, s/he had almost no rights at all (It was a bit more nuanced than that in some places at some times, but that is close enough). The slave state governments wanted slaves to count 100% for purposes of Congressional representation (and 0% for apportioned direct taxes). The non-slave states wanted the opposite--0% for representation and 100% for taxes. Everyone knew that the slaves would never get to vote so treating their numbers as if they were full citizens was would make the slave interest stronger, that is what the argument was about. 3/5, applying to both representation and the apportionment of taxes (where the arguments were reversed) was a compromise to hold the country together. By your standards the slaveholders were the more enlightened as they would have treated the slaves as 100% people for the Congressional purpose. But, as there was no way the slave states would have let those slaves vote, that is a ridiculous position and you ought to think it through. You are accepting simplistic ideological explanations that do not accord with the history and the real options available at the time. You don't have to think that the "3/5 compromise" was optimal or even moral, but your reasons for disliking it should accord with historical reality and the alternatives available to the people at the time. Would the slaves have been better off had the Northerners insisted on not compromising and the slave states had then seceded, as they surely would have, to form their own slave-based nation? Which certainly would have succeeded 1787. You may disagree, but it appears that some compromise to hold the country together in 1787, under a regime that was at least opposed to slavery in principle (though, sadly, not yet in fact) was repugnant but better than the alternative. Hard choices are like that, sometimes you hold your nose even while doing what you know is the best you can do. This all was brought home during Reconstruction, when there were no more slaves (13th amendment) so every resident counted fully for Congressional representation. In the 1870s, Southern states had been re-admitted to the Union but were violating their promises and restricting the ability of Blacks to vote. Many Radical and even Republicans (the Radicals being the former abolitionists) were angry that the Southerners were now STRONGER in Congress than they had been under the 3/5 standard, even as they suppressed Black voting and introduced the sharecropper system that was as close to the old slave system as they could get under the post-Civil War amendments. You might also consider that the path of the UK toward abolition in the 1830s was much eased by not having the American slave states as colonies with a political voice in UK affairs. As the UK had a large empire where slavery was then abolished, and the Royal Navy was the main factor in ending the African slave trade in the 1830s-1850s, it may have even been a net positive that the Southern colonies were no longer in the British Empire, even though emancipation in them came 30 years later. And it is very conceivable that had the slave states gone their own way they would have eventually returned to the British Empire where they would have been a strong voice opposed to abolition. History is complicated, nuanced, and with countervailing circumstances and outcomes. Simplistic theories that ignore all that are dangerous and pernicious.
@@martinjohnson5498 great Ted talk but I think you missed my point. You’re right slaves would not be allowed to vote but neither are children and they are counted in the census when divvying up congressional seats. The slave holders and slave state were, believe it or not, hypocritical. A slave was a person when it was convenient and property when that was convenient. Every society has hypocrisy that was the American version. I’m not judging the 3/5 compromise as irrational racism, I understand that it was designed so there could be one nation instead of squabbling states that would potentially go to war frequently causing greater hardship. My only point was that the compromise specifically identifies one group of people as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of seats in the house creating a legal distinction of lesser personhood. That’s literally it. What you make of that compromise is for you to decide, but I’m not sure how the political necessity of that compromise somehow removes the fact that there was a spectrum of legally recognized personhood in the highest law of the land.
“…totally misunderstands the 3/5 compromises….” He totally understands it. His left tilt requires that he misrepresent it to further the racism narrative. IMHO
Right, but that’s a bit technical, no? The fact of the matter is that they counted certain human beings as 3/5 of a person. Yes, for reasons related to taxation, but that was only necessary because one group of people decided to own another group of people. By your logic, one could justify the anti-Semitic laws passed by the Nazis.
I find Friedman's blaming of experts especially the examples he cites here as being extremely disingenuous. They lack political and situational context and proper presentation of the facts. I will have to read his books but they will not be at the top of my list.
George may be incorrect about Biden. There's a three part plan for seven trillion in additional spending, including the first part that already passed in the first quarter of 2021. The second part, the infrastructure and non-infrastructure, is set to pass by early July.
Dr. Friedman gives us a thumbnail history of what he feels are US "eras" but his reasoning is fuzzy and sometimes misses the mark entirely. I think a better historian could have been chosen, ONE WHO ACTUALLY HAS SOME NOTES TO FOLLOW and some more well-reasoned conclusions.
WRT microchips, Moore's Law is at an end. By this I mean that no physics exists which can make lithography any smaller. Chips may become cheaper as manufacturing investments are amortized, but chips will not become better.
Chips will become better, because there can be huge improvements in architecture. Look at Intel 14nm - huge improvement in last 6 years on same tech-process. Or look at Nvidia Kepler vs Maxwell GPU 1.5 time performance leap on same 28nm node. Microchips still have ways to improve in next 2 decades, its just next Big Thing is medicine and defeating aging. Those who will have more healthy and potent society will have more money and power, countries with old and sick people will be poor. So medicine, biology, genetics are next big tech leap Friedman is right. And that will be possible with might of next gens microchips. AMD, Nvidia and Intel in next 5 year will make huge leaps in CPU and GPU and that will power revolution in medicine and rest of science.
@@Withnail1969 look at least at one interview with Aubrey de Grey. He explains that it will not be a problem, cause birthrate in almost all countries are slowing down very rapidly already. Look at Eastern Europe - birthrate there are catastrophic, it is rapid depopulation there happening. Actually defeating aging will only stabilise population numbers there. So it is a myth that defeating aging will somehow lead to overpopulation. Again look at Aubrey de Grey many interviews on TH-cam - he gets this question a lot.
Hello… from the FUTURE! 👨🏻🚀 Well… 1 year in the future. The chips are faster, smaller, and lower power: aka “better”. It’s harder and takes a ton of money, but it is still very profitable to continue to shrink the semiconductor manufacturing nodes. And now ASML is working on NA EUV to push past the limits of EUV. There will be a physical limit some time, but we haven’t found it yet. When we do, we will probably find another clever way to continue to make chips smaller and faster. Maybe not at 2x every 2 years, but still better.
Actually experts bring miracle mRNA vaccines as well as Vector vaccine (AstraZeneca). And in USA pandemic will be soon over. Meanwhile Trump suggested year ago to drink Bleach and inject ultraviolet. Just accept facts. Facts dont care about your feelings.😉
@@mikesilver2283 I think what we're talking about here are "experts" who funded the creation of a pandemic which has killed somewhere on the order of 230 times the number killed on 9/11. Then take note of the collective shrug about the origins or any accountability. Instead it quarantined the healthy, spent wildly, issued punishing lockdowns, ruined thousands of businesses and shut down the economy to 1.1 trillion per month economic damage. The vaccines are great, I got mine, but notice the villifying of the unvaccinated hasn't relented, as if they're a threat to us somehow. A weapon for the experts to use to their advantage and distract from their culpability. What we have ladies and gentlemen is a reckless, petty, and most of all abusive class of "experts". We're not alone in this though, ask the Australians if they know anything about abuse by this group.
Worse description of a video, ever!! ""George Friedman - The Storm Before the Calm: America's Discord, the Coming Crisis of the 2020s, and the Triumph Beyond Join the Boston Public Library for an online talk with George Friedman, author of The Storm Before the Calm: America's Discord, the Coming Crisis of the 2020s, and the Triumph Beyond. The moderator for this talk, which is part of the BPL's Repairing America Series, will be BPL President David Leonard.""
Words matter. Freidman seems to have forgotten this. The constitution does not say that slaves were 3/5 human being. It does stated that for the purposes of counting census determining representation and taxes, 3 out of 4 persons under the category of "all other persons" shall be counted. This is important because of his "humanity" claim. It actually defines who can be counted, "Free persons" and "bound for term" are taxed, "Indians" not taxed, and "all other persons" at 3/5 "apportionment". The attempt to spread this misinterpretation over hundreds of years in an to rationalize the "systemic" narrative is inexcusable. He treats the accomplishment of the 13th and 14th amendments and the Civil Rights movements as non realities. If this failure is his answer to why the experience of black Americans seem an outlier to his "cycle" theory, he is wrong. Black experienced both the benefits and travails of Americas existence , the degree to which require analysis of factors beyond the scope of his theory.
There will be no calm for me. For my son and I to have gone through what we went through only to me dismissed by Bill and Harry in that fashion is unforgivable. Like I said even to Vogue after my son was kidnapped, anyone that tried to discredit our, HIS traumatic experience is cruel and someone I don't respect. My son's kidnapping made and makes any discrediting CRUEL, ARROGANT, RACIST and beyond redemption. Doing what you are doing is denying my son's very real and traumatic experience. If you all MUST discredit my son and make him another black boy statistic, I will use the legal system to the fullest extent to prove: 1. Harry is a liar 2. Olivia is a liar 3. Bill Maher is a liar And all 3 did what they did knowing my son is calling for his mom because Trudeau and Canada have their knees on his neck. I will use the legal system to show black boys are so disposable even Harry, Olivia and Bill Maher found it justifiable in their arts to ACT out an entire performance to discredit and dismiss his pain, like they did during slavery. That is a direct attack on my son - when it comes to my son, I don't play! That is all I will say for now. Not proof read
Please tell me he did not just day that the prime minister in European countries appears as a dictator. If anything so many US presidents have shown to handle to their will. Lets just be reminded of the many ridiculous actions that Trump did...... Very disappointing when such statements come from an European emigrant.
@@cosimodalessio642 You strike me as someone unable to learn because of cognitive bias. That's fine, you're like most people. Personally...I have a superpower. I'm able to listen to people on the left and right without getting emotional...and therefore I learn and live in a world you can't even imagine. I swim in the deep end. But you can stay in the kiddie pool and slash around. Enjoy.
@@TrendyStone Ah!!! A brilliant, all-knowing genius, able to make long-distance diagnoses by way of superior, far-advanced thinking abilities that include telepathy and clairvoyance! (I would bet you’re a smirky lefty.)
@@cosimodalessio642 I'm neither left nor right. I'm above it. I don't claim to be a genius; only to have perspective. The fact that you call anyone you don't like a "smirky lefty" shows you play in the shallow end of the pool. Have fun splashing around little guy.
The founders made an engine... God that is an incredibly stupid analogy. And incredibly stupid to confuse a cycle of an engine with a cycle of history. There's no phsycal work being done by the rotation of history. You can't put history into a car as an engine. That's just absolutely stupid to try to pretend that means anything other than your analysis completely failed.
I enjoyed this interview. I disagree with Friedman regarding his thinking that we need to wait for another President to emerge to move us forward. This Fourth Turning began with the financial crisis in 2008. In 2028 we will be 20 years in. Roughly a generation. So we should be coming out of this Fourth Turning this decade. Biden is our Roosevelt.
FDR is overrated. We are dealing with the pseudo-fascism (literally) that he and Wilson ushered in and later LBJ. I prefer Hayes, Cal or even Reagan. Joe is more like Night of the Living Dead meets the W.E.F. and PC Jihadism.
@@S.J.L when I think about fascism, I think of figures like hitler or Mussolini. Difficult for me to see that in FDR. LOL. I think we are going to see labor strengthen in this country, Sherman act and other anti-trust will be applied, tax rates made more progressive. Don’t see fascism in that either. I do think democracy is under threat as in others 4th turnings, but historically we always go left during times like this. And looks like we are going left this time as well.
Today is14 May 2022. One year has passed since this lecture. George Friedman's analysis has been spot on as to where we would be. I hope, like many of us, that our Society will absorb the crises of our time and emerge in tact. At present, little is certain.
George needs to be on JRE now that they are neighbors in Austin! I just think it would be a facinating interview
Oh my, that would be epic!
Agreed. It would be an excellent platform for George. A brilliant man who knows the ways of the world.
i think he should be on the prudentialist's sunday stream
ABSOLUTELY....
Lex Fridman might work better right now
Very interesting talk. It's always good to let the experts go on at length to explain themselves. Sometimes you learn interesting stuff. Not sure I agree with some of his conclusions and projections, but it's all well reasoned and food for thought for me.
Thanks for putting this together, BPL.
Freedman is 100% right. A large part of the country is very weary of so called government expert opinion .
This is a great interview.
Love the facial expressions of the moderator every time GF suggests that people have a problem with federal govt and its experts calling all the shots.
It’s like a top sales man talking to a puffed up marketer… explaining what the customers are saying…
Thank you for really good insights.
It is also true that the Supreme Court had to initially fight to have its powers relevant, thus in the initial years they had to decide cases and declare it was THEIR job to tell us what the law is and says and means. And to clarify that there were three branches of power, etc etc... that means initially it wasn't given to them by the other two powers, as it is now, they have to constantly struggle to be relevant, all three branches.
There ARE three branches: Unfortunately, the courts are not one of them. Our "mixed form of government" was based on Cicero's blueprint from "De Republica". He called for a State to be tripartite and composed of elements of all three classical forms of government: Monarchy, aristocracy and republic. (These three had a bad habit of decaying into their mutant versions: Tyranny, oligarchy and democracy.) To keep that from happening, and to preserve the best elements of all three, he suggested a three branch government. The Founding Fathers in America followed this template, creating the Presidency (based on monarchy), the senate (based on aristocracy) and the House of Representatives (based on republic). The courts were not (and never were) a "branch of government". Both John Stuart Mill and Montesquieu place the courts under the Executive Branch. Which is how the Founders in America saw it. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg talks about how, in the 1850s, no one saw the courts as a "branch of government". See her speech on Judah Benjamin. She writes: "In 1853, Benjamin declined the nomination of President Millard Fillmore to become an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Just elected U.S. Senator from Louisiana, Benjamin preferred to retain his First Branch post. His choice suggests that the U.S. Supreme Court had not yet become the co-equal Branch it is today." . . . So the concept of Congress being "bicameral" and made up of both Senate and the House, and a Supreme Court being a "branch of government" is a 20th Century fiction.
He said the Iraq war but you could make the case that all of America regime change land wars fought since the end of WW2 were fought by “experts” and failed. The origins of Vietnam war ” best and brightest” now you can add failed 20 year Afghanistan war. In which the Pentagon best and brightest will go up to Congress for more money and say oh we’re training the Afghan army to fight, they’ll be ready soon. The withdrawal of Afghanistan war was even more humiliating in the Vietnam War.
Jump to 5:21 for when George gets to start.
“If things only get bad enough, everything will work out “. Henry Miller
Deglobalize, Decentralize, and Trust Bust.
On the contrary, you don't want all your eggs in the same basket as we have now.
George Friedman has been forecasting a conflict with Japan for over 30 years, I think we need to put this idea to rest.
Japan should have been in depression for decades due to their poor demographics. But they sorted out a Post Growth system that keeps them from having to face their demographic problems.
There was a conflict. It began in the 1990's, was caused by the USA, and the USA won. This time around it was economic rather than military and Japan surrendered without firing s shot. Clue: Plaza Accords.
How was Climate Change not mentioned? What impact will food shortages, increased frequency/severity of natural disasters, climate refugees, etc. have on this 50 year cycle?
With how the election turned out this year, my guess is Friedman was correct. This presidency will see many of the Reagan-Era economics used while many policies from the past are passed in legislation. I do believe that 2028 will see a presidency better than any candidate we've had in the past nine years, and I hold out hope that the cycle will be one to be proud of.
I'm a long term follower and fan of George, and my criticism is minor: he makes use of a cultural bias, which is to maintain a pretense of neutrality, by use of the technique of Critique (and pilpul) by using the mother's method of saying it will be ok. It's not going to be ok. This allows the speaker to gain attention, but not to motivate people to change their behavior.
Jordon Peterson.
I would love to see an interview or maybe just a discussion between the two.
As someone who grew up in a extremely abusive family but in a very nice area… the first thing I thought was…
All the drunk parents are going to go to war on their kids-
Justice for all sounds like socialism to me. Justice depends on who blindfolds the lady holding the scale, and what weights she will use :)
Friedman!!!
George always revisits the past as if Presidents call the shots. He always omits discussing the Fed Reserve and the oil based currency of the US. It’s a rhetorical tactic that works on the general public and half read fools graduating from intellectually hollow tertiary schools. Thanks for YOUR history lesson George but your OMISSIONS especially those about those shyster Fijians that only care about their faith, being hospitable and having enough coconuts for them and anyone else that asks. Finally George, choosing to describe the government as “complex” isn’t lost when you should be describing them as “complicated”
all those things .ono. applied then and now .zeihan and George guess on an outcome x human nature x current issue .. and its about selling books
Pretty simple, cut government, run budget surpluses, lower corporate taxes and cut regulations, once the national debt gets under control, slash taxes more.
Your receipt is how implode debt. What you are proposing is what USA doing since Reagan - debt imploded, Huge corporations not pay federal taxes at all, non elected trillionareslike Bezos and Koch have tremendous chunk of power and looting USA. In 1958 in USA corporate marginal tax was 90% - highest ever, that was also the most prosperous time ever, cause corporations evade this tax by reinvesting in themselfes.
How do u run a surplus with the political clout for defense, Medicare and Medicaid?
The captions embedded in the video are amazingly bad, it would be better to just have a message noting that youtube has an option for captions, which are much better.
The solution or prosperity George alludes to at the end of the cycle will be the breaking up or splitting of the country.
History does not move in cycles. Sometimes people look for patterns where there is only chaos and randomness.
History doesn't repeat, but it does rhythm.
History rhymes and it rhymes rhythmically. I am talking about the generational 80 year cycle.
@@johngiesbers9811 This rhythm may be the transition to a new section of the poem/song. We've never had a demographic structure of the sort we're experiencing.
@@oats6452 we don’t have to have the same demographic structure . We r n a 4th Turning and it is playing out, in general terms, just like other 4th Turnings. 80 years ago (1940) we were in Great Depression and WW2. 80 years before that (1860) we were in American civil war. And about 80 years before that (1776) we were in American Revolutionary War. In 4th Turnings we lose faith in our institutions, democracy is threatened, and we tear things down. And apparently as a country, we always defend democracy, even if it takes a war to do it.
@@johngiesbers9811We can't know that. Again, we've never had this demographic structure. Basing a hypothesis that inverted demographics may have a significant impact on generational threads isn't outlandish. It's an exciting event for anyone interested in this subject.
on 18.46 subtitles don't quite get emancipation :s
18:45 - When the translator clearly didn't get "emancipation" right...
LOL thanks so much for letting us know i had to go back and look hilarious
The subtitle on 18:45 😂
50:04 - Two Cycles looking for transition 50:30 - 51:24 - 51:50 - 52:16 -
52:54 - Q & A
Not sure we're close enough to a therapy to delay and/or reverse senescence to bet our economic future on it in the same way we were close to semi-conductor breakthroughs in the 60 and 70's that allowed us to build our economic growth around computation. It's not for a lack of capital, though. It's a just a much more difficult problem. Who was it that said you can't solve problems with the same thinking that created them?
Event 401?
Maybe the Next Big Tech thing is AI and quantum computing...
Sir
In 72 in West Virginia university HP 45 was $ 450 not $ 200 ,
I remembered that cause my girlfriend Patty got it fr me.
Medical tech is a need, but our more immediate need may be replacement for labor as we expand demand, on shore manufacturing, and reduce population. So machine learning and robots, which have been increasing in capability rapidly over the past 10 years, much as the microchip was in the 10 years before Reagan and the subsequent boom of microelectronics impact. Self driving trucks, taxis, farm and construction equipment, etc.
America running out of wars to find,start and fund 😂😂😂😂.
Ukraine n Taiwan are it’s last resorts but China not taking the bait it seems.
14:20 - 15:04 - 15:49 - 1
16:09 - the crisis of the 1970s'[appears to] ends with
_________ [Rise in private borrowing that produces the GREATER DEPRESSION of 2008]
problems started 2016 to 2020? from the outside looking in, Trump was the best thing that ever happened,
Lol...Trump Is a brilliant Con man who only cares about himself..
He is a psychopath...
Dr. Friedman mentions Civil war, WW2 and Iraq war. But not Vietnam?
USA already officially(!) lost 10 times more people dead from Corona-virus then in all Vietnam War. Unoficially USA lost almost 15 times more then all american KIA in Vietnam because conservatives in red states (and Cuomo) lowered paper records to hide actual horrible numbers, also a lot of people die from consequences of corona, (like stroke, clots, heart attack) yet officially not counted down as virus victims. Thus why casualties of Vietnam War look dwarfed compared to WW2 or Corona losses.
@@mikesilver2283 What kind of psychobabble are you spewing?
he's sick. he will meet with Brzezinski soon
[omG. What happened to Mr. Friedman? In 2015 on the Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs he looked brilliant, young and fresh, so to say. Now one can see an old man full of alarming thoughts about the future.]
his body of work speaks for itself, much of which is from his more youthful years (as if youth plays any role in correctness).
Sounds very similar to Psychohistory these cycles. But on a much smaller scale.
You totally missed AI and robotics. I believe the will drive the new America.
need a translatons for others languages
53:42 - [the almost universal] G I Bill 54:30 - Q 54:58 - A
35:00-totally misunderstands the 3/5 compromise, which was about representation in Congress and the apportionment of direct taxes, NOT about degrees of humanity. Terrible mistake on Friedman’s part.
Yes that’s what it was for. Remember, the make up of Congress is decided by the number of full persons living in a state. The slave population would be counted but each would be considered 3/5 of a person. Ergo legal distinction of personhood the why doesn’t matter.
@@williamkline7922 NO!!! The 3/5 Compromise was a definition in law of how certain governmental functions will be apportioned. It was not a statement on "personhood" in terms of the value of one person versus another. Everybody complains about and misunderstands the 3/5 apportionment for voting, but nobody mentions the 3/5 also applied to taxation.
As far as "personhood," in slave areas the slave counted for nearly -0- as a person, s/he had almost no rights at all (It was a bit more nuanced than that in some places at some times, but that is close enough). The slave state governments wanted slaves to count 100% for purposes of Congressional representation (and 0% for apportioned direct taxes). The non-slave states wanted the opposite--0% for representation and 100% for taxes. Everyone knew that the slaves would never get to vote so treating their numbers as if they were full citizens was would make the slave interest stronger, that is what the argument was about. 3/5, applying to both representation and the apportionment of taxes (where the arguments were reversed) was a compromise to hold the country together.
By your standards the slaveholders were the more enlightened as they would have treated the slaves as 100% people for the Congressional purpose. But, as there was no way the slave states would have let those slaves vote, that is a ridiculous position and you ought to think it through. You are accepting simplistic ideological explanations that do not accord with the history and the real options available at the time. You don't have to think that the "3/5 compromise" was optimal or even moral, but your reasons for disliking it should accord with historical reality and the alternatives available to the people at the time. Would the slaves have been better off had the Northerners insisted on not compromising and the slave states had then seceded, as they surely would have, to form their own slave-based nation? Which certainly would have succeeded 1787.
You may disagree, but it appears that some compromise to hold the country together in 1787, under a regime that was at least opposed to slavery in principle (though, sadly, not yet in fact) was repugnant but better than the alternative. Hard choices are like that, sometimes you hold your nose even while doing what you know is the best you can do.
This all was brought home during Reconstruction, when there were no more slaves (13th amendment) so every resident counted fully for Congressional representation. In the 1870s, Southern states had been re-admitted to the Union but were violating their promises and restricting the ability of Blacks to vote. Many Radical and even Republicans (the Radicals being the former abolitionists) were angry that the Southerners were now STRONGER in Congress than they had been under the 3/5 standard, even as they suppressed Black voting and introduced the sharecropper system that was as close to the old slave system as they could get under the post-Civil War amendments.
You might also consider that the path of the UK toward abolition in the 1830s was much eased by not having the American slave states as colonies with a political voice in UK affairs. As the UK had a large empire where slavery was then abolished, and the Royal Navy was the main factor in ending the African slave trade in the 1830s-1850s, it may have even been a net positive that the Southern colonies were no longer in the British Empire, even though emancipation in them came 30 years later. And it is very conceivable that had the slave states gone their own way they would have eventually returned to the British Empire where they would have been a strong voice opposed to abolition.
History is complicated, nuanced, and with countervailing circumstances and outcomes. Simplistic theories that ignore all that are dangerous and pernicious.
@@martinjohnson5498 great Ted talk but I think you missed my point. You’re right slaves would not be allowed to vote but neither are children and they are counted in the census when divvying up congressional seats. The slave holders and slave state were, believe it or not, hypocritical. A slave was a person when it was convenient and property when that was convenient. Every society has hypocrisy that was the American version. I’m not judging the 3/5 compromise as irrational racism, I understand that it was designed so there could be one nation instead of squabbling states that would potentially go to war frequently causing greater hardship. My only point was that the compromise specifically identifies one group of people as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of seats in the house creating a legal distinction of lesser personhood. That’s literally it. What you make of that compromise is for you to decide, but I’m not sure how the political necessity of that compromise somehow removes the fact that there was a spectrum of legally recognized personhood in the highest law of the land.
“…totally misunderstands the 3/5 compromises….”
He totally understands it. His left tilt requires that he misrepresent it to further the racism narrative.
IMHO
Right, but that’s a bit technical, no? The fact of the matter is that they counted certain human beings as 3/5 of a person. Yes, for reasons related to taxation, but that was only necessary because one group of people decided to own another group of people. By your logic, one could justify the anti-Semitic laws passed by the Nazis.
I find Friedman's blaming of experts especially the examples he cites here as being extremely disingenuous. They lack political and situational context and proper presentation of the facts. I will have to read his books but they will not be at the top of my list.
11:16 - Jimmy Carter [former Currency-Using-GOVT (State of GA) not aware USA-FED-GOV Issues Currency]
George may be incorrect about Biden. There's a three part plan for seven trillion in additional spending, including the first part that already passed in the first quarter of 2021. The second part, the infrastructure and non-infrastructure, is set to pass by early July.
10:20 - Electricity becomes a need of modern life
_________ (Observing pre-electric & electric living has not brought that wisdom to most in 2021)
13:36 - [How can the USA reject Austerity & return to Abundant Capitalizing of Innovative-Inventive Industry?]
12:54 - The end of the CYCLE
Dr. Friedman gives us a thumbnail history of what he feels are US "eras" but his reasoning is fuzzy and sometimes misses the mark entirely. I think a better historian could have been chosen, ONE WHO ACTUALLY HAS SOME NOTES TO FOLLOW and some more well-reasoned conclusions.
48:57 - 49:18 - 2028
WRT microchips, Moore's Law is at an end. By this I mean that no physics exists which can make lithography any smaller. Chips may become cheaper as manufacturing investments are amortized, but chips will not become better.
Chips will become better, because there can be huge improvements in architecture. Look at Intel 14nm - huge improvement in last 6 years on same tech-process. Or look at Nvidia Kepler vs Maxwell GPU 1.5 time performance leap on same 28nm node. Microchips still have ways to improve in next 2 decades, its just next Big Thing is medicine and defeating aging. Those who will have more healthy and potent society will have more money and power, countries with old and sick people will be poor. So medicine, biology, genetics are next big tech leap Friedman is right. And that will be possible with might of next gens microchips. AMD, Nvidia and Intel in next 5 year will make huge leaps in CPU and GPU and that will power revolution in medicine and rest of science.
@@mikesilver2283 With 7.9 billion people on the planet, defeating aging sounds like a way to create a much bigger problem.
@@Withnail1969 look at least at one interview with Aubrey de Grey. He explains that it will not be a problem, cause birthrate in almost all countries are slowing down very rapidly already. Look at Eastern Europe - birthrate there are catastrophic, it is rapid depopulation there happening. Actually defeating aging will only stabilise population numbers there. So it is a myth that defeating aging will somehow lead to overpopulation. Again look at Aubrey de Grey many interviews on TH-cam - he gets this question a lot.
@@mikesilver2283 well no it will be a problem even with low birthrates if people are living hundreds of years or immortal.
Hello… from the FUTURE! 👨🏻🚀
Well… 1 year in the future. The chips are faster, smaller, and lower power: aka “better”. It’s harder and takes a ton of money, but it is still very profitable to continue to shrink the semiconductor manufacturing nodes. And now ASML is working on NA EUV to push past the limits of EUV. There will be a physical limit some time, but we haven’t found it yet. When we do, we will probably find another clever way to continue to make chips smaller and faster. Maybe not at 2x every 2 years, but still better.
he trashes trump but his entire thesis is "experts" who trump fought against screwed up with iraq & covid
Actually experts bring miracle mRNA vaccines as well as Vector vaccine (AstraZeneca). And in USA pandemic will be soon over. Meanwhile Trump suggested year ago to drink Bleach and inject ultraviolet. Just accept facts. Facts dont care about your feelings.😉
Trump was an idiot, a Con.. still is..
@@mikesilver2283 I think what we're talking about here are "experts" who funded the creation of a pandemic which has killed somewhere on the order of 230 times the number killed on 9/11. Then take note of the collective shrug about the origins or any accountability. Instead it quarantined the healthy, spent wildly, issued punishing lockdowns, ruined thousands of businesses and shut down the economy to 1.1 trillion per month economic damage. The vaccines are great, I got mine, but notice the villifying of the unvaccinated hasn't relented, as if they're a threat to us somehow. A weapon for the experts to use to their advantage and distract from their culpability. What we have ladies and gentlemen is a reckless, petty, and most of all abusive class of "experts". We're not alone in this though, ask the Australians if they know anything about abuse by this group.
05:36 - began the book in 1975
Worse description of a video, ever!!
""George Friedman - The Storm Before the Calm: America's Discord, the Coming Crisis of the 2020s, and the Triumph Beyond
Join the Boston Public Library for an online talk with George Friedman, author of The Storm Before the Calm: America's Discord, the Coming Crisis of the 2020s, and the Triumph Beyond. The moderator for this talk, which is part of the BPL's Repairing America Series, will be BPL President David Leonard.""
He looks like bush 43
Or Bill Maher.
The 2/3 clause was how to count slaves in the census,to determine how many representatives the state would get
3/5, actually
Words matter. Freidman seems to have forgotten this. The constitution does not say that slaves were 3/5 human being. It does stated that for the purposes of counting census determining representation and taxes, 3 out of 4 persons under the category of "all other persons" shall be counted. This is important because of his "humanity" claim. It actually defines who can be counted, "Free persons" and "bound for term" are taxed, "Indians" not taxed, and "all other persons" at 3/5 "apportionment". The attempt to spread this misinterpretation over hundreds of years in an to rationalize the "systemic" narrative is inexcusable. He treats the accomplishment of the 13th and 14th amendments and the Civil Rights movements as non realities. If this failure is his answer to why the experience of black Americans seem an outlier to his "cycle" theory, he is wrong. Black experienced both the benefits and travails of Americas existence , the degree to which require analysis of factors beyond the scope of his theory.
There will be no calm for me.
For my son and I to have gone through what we went through only to me dismissed by Bill and Harry in that fashion is unforgivable.
Like I said even to Vogue after my son was kidnapped, anyone that tried to discredit our, HIS traumatic experience is cruel and someone I don't respect.
My son's kidnapping made and makes any discrediting CRUEL, ARROGANT, RACIST and beyond redemption. Doing what you are doing is denying my son's very real and traumatic experience.
If you all MUST discredit my son and make him another black boy statistic, I will use the legal system to the fullest extent to prove:
1. Harry is a liar
2. Olivia is a liar
3. Bill Maher is a liar
And all 3 did what they did knowing my son is calling for his mom because Trudeau and Canada have their knees on his neck. I will use the legal system to show black boys are so disposable even Harry, Olivia and Bill Maher found it justifiable in their arts to ACT out an entire performance to discredit and dismiss his pain, like they did during slavery. That is a direct attack on my son - when it comes to my son, I don't play!
That is all I will say for now.
Not proof read
Why does the librarian talk so much and give us his opinions so much? His moderating is full of political correctness 😂😂
Probably fears being on the receiving end of "mean Tweets". 😱
Never more wrong about more things.
Please tell me he did not just day that the prime minister in European countries appears as a dictator. If anything so many US presidents have shown to handle to their will. Lets just be reminded of the many ridiculous actions that Trump did...... Very disappointing when such statements come from an European emigrant.
Cycles present opportunity.
He lost me when he said in 2015 it was time for a really bad President to emerge.
Bye-bye Mr. Smirky Leftie.
IMHO
He seems to criticize all presidents pretty consistently.
@@TrendyStone He has a smirky, leftist bias that is irritating at best.
Imho
@@cosimodalessio642 You strike me as someone unable to learn because of cognitive bias. That's fine, you're like most people. Personally...I have a superpower. I'm able to listen to people on the left and right without getting emotional...and therefore I learn and live in a world you can't even imagine. I swim in the deep end. But you can stay in the kiddie pool and slash around. Enjoy.
@@TrendyStone Ah!!! A brilliant, all-knowing genius, able to make long-distance diagnoses by way of superior, far-advanced thinking abilities that include telepathy and clairvoyance! (I would bet you’re a smirky lefty.)
@@cosimodalessio642 I'm neither left nor right. I'm above it. I don't claim to be a genius; only to have perspective.
The fact that you call anyone you don't like a "smirky lefty" shows you play in the shallow end of the pool. Have fun splashing around little guy.
29:04 -
Homo sapiens is not at all unique in having the cognitive ability to recognize patterns.
vague prediction beyond another prediction......
The founders made an engine... God that is an incredibly stupid analogy. And incredibly stupid to confuse a cycle of an engine with a cycle of history. There's no phsycal work being done by the rotation of history. You can't put history into a car as an engine. That's just absolutely stupid to try to pretend that means anything other than your analysis completely failed.
Absolutely horrible subtitles.
admin crises: war on Islam; COVID.
Am I the only one who finds David Leonard to be annoying?
Reductive model of history here, and this guy is irritating to boot.
I enjoyed this interview. I disagree with Friedman regarding his thinking that we need to wait for another President to emerge to move us forward. This Fourth Turning began with the financial crisis in 2008. In 2028 we will be 20 years in. Roughly a generation. So we should be coming out of this Fourth Turning this decade. Biden is our Roosevelt.
Biden is our Roosevelt? No, Biden is our Harding.
Biden is our Harding.
Lol. Interesting. Well Harding was a Republican. And he was not a Fourth Turning president. I think Trump was our Hoover. What do u think?
FDR is overrated. We are dealing with the pseudo-fascism (literally) that he and Wilson ushered in and later LBJ. I prefer Hayes, Cal or even Reagan. Joe is more like Night of the Living Dead meets the W.E.F. and PC Jihadism.
@@S.J.L when I think about fascism, I think of figures like hitler or Mussolini. Difficult for me to see that in FDR. LOL. I think we are going to see labor strengthen in this country, Sherman act and other anti-trust will be applied, tax rates made more progressive. Don’t see fascism in that either.
I do think democracy is under threat as in others 4th turnings, but historically we always go left during times like this. And looks like we are going left this time as well.
Reparations
11:59 - [Good Grief : Ronald SPENT Money]
Like listening to a fossil from past times past - let’s move on.