Heard about this theory on Beck this morning. Apparently, we are in a "We" cycle. Below are a couple of excerpts from a website that promotes this theory. First, here is a link to the website and an image depicting key elements of this theory.

Quote:

---

When we look back throughout history, there are many cycles of change that can be seen. According to Roy Williams and his extensive research of more than 3,000 years, the American economy has been carrying out the same cycle every 80 years. He calls it the "Pendulum", and its details are written out in his book: Pendulum: How Past Generations Shape Our Present and Predict Our Future.

---

Quote:

---

During extremes of the Me Generations arise individuals, whether it be Adolf Hitler or Ronald Reagan. This lasts for 20 years, and then it comes back down, which takes another 20 years. At the end of this 40-year turn, then a We Generation begins causing the entire process to take 80 years. When looking at this cycle, the tragedy of the matter is that we always take a good thing too far. It is this realization that causes the "pendulum" to come back down.

---

There are similar such theories that I have heard about over the years, and perhaps they hold water OR could all be a bunch of BS. One difference in this theory as opposed to others is that It doesn't advocate that Me is good and We is bad, or vice versa. It simply states this is the way things are and have been (I suppose) since the beginning of time.

I haven't really had an opportunity to analyze this, but wanted to know of your thoughts on the topic. If any have more knowledge of this and would like to share, please do. I've come to trust the opinions of some here more so than people I know IRL.

If this is true, and we are at the zenith of the We pendulum, what are the implications? I heard Beck say on his program this morning that the last Me cycle was during the time of Reagan.

Is there any way to statistically or scientifically prove or disprove such a theory? I think that an analysis of trends might prove useful, but I'm not a statistical analyst.

I'm very tired and it's been a long day, so I might read this after posting and think "WTF?" I don't know. It is my first thread and maybe the whole topic will receive nothing more than a collective brief glance before everyone moves on.

I'm skeptical of these "cycle" theories, like this and the 4th turning stuff. Some many unique circumstances make it impossible to find reliable patterns. Too neat and tidy.

Proc92 said:

---

I'm skeptical of these "cycle" theories, like this and the 4th turning stuff. Some many unique circumstances make it impossible to find reliable patterns. Too neat and tidy.

---

I'm a bit skeptical as well. It is why I wanted to know if anyone might have an analysis that might back this up, or disprove it altogether. Thank you for your comment. It's a pretty logical standpoint.

I've read this book. Pretty good IMO.

Not sure how to prove anything. It's all theoretical but it makes a lot of sense.

Proc92 said:

---

I'm skeptical of these "cycle" theories, like this and the 4th turning stuff. Some many unique circumstances make it impossible to find reliable patterns. Too neat and tidy.

---

Perhaps its the whole history doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme type thing.

I think there are pretty obvious patterns that have played out throughout history though. The hard times creates strong men thing seems to be pretty undeniable.

There's a lot of theories and studies that happen to find chance correlation without understanding what's actually going on.

This one is interesting because I think it's rooted more in psychology which takes into account human nature, market sentiment, and group behavior. Those are the things economics are based on. Those things also follow patterns that can be tracked and traced.

When one person acts, it can be irrational. When a group acts, it can be erratic, but starts leaning toward predictable and rational. When an entire society acts, it's usually very patterned.

mazag08 said:

---

There's a lot of theories and studies that happen to find chance correlation without understanding what's actually going on.

This one is interesting because I think it's rooted more in psychology which takes into account human nature, market sentiment, and group behavior. Those are the things economics are based on. Those things also follow patterns that can be tracked and traced.

When one person acts, it can be irrational. When a group acts, it can be erratic, but starts leaning toward predictable and rational. When an entire society acts, it's usually very patterned.

---

One has to think the powers that be are pretty well versed in manipulating the populace into directions they choose. All the data our phones soak up is analyzed by AI and big data tools; they have some pretty crazy predictive analytics going on.

Pookers said:

---

mazag08 said:

---

There's a lot of theories and studies that happen to find chance correlation without understanding what's actually going on.

This one is interesting because I think it's rooted more in psychology which takes into account human nature, market sentiment, and group behavior. Those are the things economics are based on. Those things also follow patterns that can be tracked and traced.

When one person acts, it can be irrational. When a group acts, it can be erratic, but starts leaning toward predictable and rational. When an entire society acts, it's usually very patterned.

---

One has to think the powers that be are pretty well versed in manipulating the populace into directions they choose. All the data our phones soak up is analyzed by AI and big data tools; they have some pretty crazy predictive analytics going on.

---

Given you understand this we all need to contribute to the garbage in garbage concept. teach people to corrupt their data. Remember its all about patterns