11-14-2016, 12:54 PM
Basically, meh.
It's one of those things that gives a tidy and neat model, but there seems to be no evidence backing it.
The illustration of 20th century US is particularly revealing. My understanding of economic events such as the crash of '29, the great depression, the end of the great depression, etc, runs 180 degrees contrary to what they're describing within each generation. It's not individualism that led to the crash or the depression, only for the nation to come together during WWII and finally right the ship.
To the contrary, the economy was at its worse during the height of WWII. Economists often get this wrong for two key reasons. One, spending on the war effort is counted in with GDP, even though pricing here is arbitrary and not in any way a reflection of the state of the market. Two, price controls were in place at the time, and when economists inflation adjust, they adjust according to the official prices, even though the shops were empty so nobody was actually trading at these prices. When private spending is dis-aggregated from public spending and actual price inflation accounted for, that period during the height of the war where most economists declare the depression was over an the economy was booming, is actually clearly the weakest.
The REAL end to the depression came only after the war ended, when able-bodied men were returned to their lives as individuals rather than a collective army, where government spending dropped by two-thirds, placing individual consumption as the driving force of the economy rather than collective public spending, and cuts in taxes by about one-third allowing a larger piece of the pie to go to individuals and smaller piece to the collective.
The illustration (and timing of the development of the theory) does seem to suggest that the "generation gap" is becoming more and more pronounced over time. Perhaps Joseph Campbell and Karl Jung have it right that each generation needs their myth. Maybe it's because rites of passage are becoming more and more fringe.
It's one of those things that gives a tidy and neat model, but there seems to be no evidence backing it.
The illustration of 20th century US is particularly revealing. My understanding of economic events such as the crash of '29, the great depression, the end of the great depression, etc, runs 180 degrees contrary to what they're describing within each generation. It's not individualism that led to the crash or the depression, only for the nation to come together during WWII and finally right the ship.
To the contrary, the economy was at its worse during the height of WWII. Economists often get this wrong for two key reasons. One, spending on the war effort is counted in with GDP, even though pricing here is arbitrary and not in any way a reflection of the state of the market. Two, price controls were in place at the time, and when economists inflation adjust, they adjust according to the official prices, even though the shops were empty so nobody was actually trading at these prices. When private spending is dis-aggregated from public spending and actual price inflation accounted for, that period during the height of the war where most economists declare the depression was over an the economy was booming, is actually clearly the weakest.
The REAL end to the depression came only after the war ended, when able-bodied men were returned to their lives as individuals rather than a collective army, where government spending dropped by two-thirds, placing individual consumption as the driving force of the economy rather than collective public spending, and cuts in taxes by about one-third allowing a larger piece of the pie to go to individuals and smaller piece to the collective.
The illustration (and timing of the development of the theory) does seem to suggest that the "generation gap" is becoming more and more pronounced over time. Perhaps Joseph Campbell and Karl Jung have it right that each generation needs their myth. Maybe it's because rites of passage are becoming more and more fringe.