What do you suppose we can do about that, now? How do you fight corruption of this sort on a site like this? Do we need basic research and reasoning skills tests for users?
I'm serious. What can we do we do to save Hacker News?
Your last point kind of illustrates you have no clue what you are talking about.
If boomers are such great spenders, I can assume you think they have the most buying power? Then we shouldn't see any decline in the things they buy such as newspapers, all those old brands of cars,....
Again if you actually read the entire article I address and argue a lot of your points backed with data.
I guess time only tell who is correct.
Yes, I am sticking my neck out on this. Feel free to come chop it off in 3 years if we don't hit a depression, if my predictions don't come true, and if my estimates in the chart don't come true.
At that time I will be happy to tuck my tail between my legs and you can throw pie in my face.
I wrote about what is happening now in 2006, new president with new movement, redistribution of wealth coming, and old media going away. (www.flairjax.com) you will have to search for it.
Again, I suggest stop skimming and read the entire thing.
Let me break it down for you since you like bullet points.
I will talk slowly...
Hoover deported Mexicans. Bush would have but they didn't want to lose the election so he built a fence (billions in $) so it is a major step up from Americans just complaining about Mexicans. See my comment above should have been 'upheld' prohibition not 'passed' my bad. Yes, generations are continuous, but those in power and those industries created and run by Idealist Generations, such as railroad owners, newspaper owners, etc don't have all the power and money. Why do think blogs are struggling? When newspapers die blog will take their place and skyrocket. Just as the automobile did against the railroad.
Maybe if you slowed down you might actually learn something. Your opinions aren't facts. Yes, I have my opinions, but they are supported by data. Where is your data?
So all these numbers are just one big coincidence?
Come chop my neck in three years if I am wrong its sticking out on this one. Go ahead mark your calendar!
- None of the stuff you mention is specific enough to constitute a prediction. If Bloomberg had won in 2008, would you be talking about how this represented a "new movement"? What about Huckabee? Edwards?
- Hoover did not have the constitutional authority to end Prohibition; the 18th Amendment could only have been repealed by another amendment, with the consent of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states, as indeed happened in 1933 with the 21st Amendment.
- Blogs are not struggling; they are growing exponentially (http://econsultancy.com/blog/092-surge-in-blog-statistics-as...).
- What numbers? The only numbers in your comment are "3" and "2006".
"They are usually math experts and they say math can predict the future so, if that’s true, why didn’t they see this coming?"
Most of the finance people who didn't see this coming were either simply bad at math, or distorted the math so heavily to fit their preconceived notions of what the world was like that it no longer made any sense. The people who do know the most math- Renaissance Technologies, led by former math professor Jim Simons- were up 80% during 2008 (http://seekingalpha.com/article/138283-barron-s-top-100-rank...).
"Also, income inequality, measured by the ratio of the top 10% of wage earners compared to the bottom 90%, increased dramatically during both presidential terms. The ratio increased from 7.1% in 1928 to 7.8% in 1932 under Hoover, and from 6.8% in 2001 to an outrageous 7.9% in 2006 under Bush, the year the Center For American Progress study was conducted."
I presume what he means here is that the richest 10% now have an average income which is 7.9 times higher than that of the bottom 90%; using "percent" in this context makes no sense at all.
"Further, Both Bush and Hoover took steps to either deport and/or restrict Mexicans from immigrating to America, which is a key signal I will discuss in detail."
Wait... what? I don't know enough about Hoover to say, but there hasn't been any significant change in US immigration policy under Bush, and in any case, Mexican immigrants are a small percentage of the American economy (maybe 5%?).
"Finally, both Bush and Hoover took steps to inhibit certain forms of new energy – Hoover passed prohibition, which eliminated ethanol, and Bush refused to pass any bills that promoted renewable energy."
Prohibition was passed during 1919, a full nine years before Hoover became president; at the time, Hoover was preoccupied with keeping the Russians from starving after the Bolshevik revolution.
"Some examples of things that can’t be easily counted that can indicate that a major recession or depression is looming are lawsuits filed by established companies that seek to block competition or progress (RIAA, AP)"
Companies have always done that, during good times and bad, dating back to Standard Oil and their monopoly over the refining business.
"U.S. citizens complaining about Mexican immigrants taking their jobs, "
Again, US citizens have always done that; see http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive... for a humorous take on this.
"In the US, every 40 to 80 years a Civic Generation (or “Joshua Generation”) appears that looks to re-energize social, political, and government institutions to solve neglected national issues, usually by dramatically expanding government."
This is a very far-reaching claim with absolutely no evidence.
"As a result, when we have an election with a large, deep, and stressing fracture between the two parties, you will see a pause or decline in business and the stock market, as people wait to see if the country is taking a step toward progress, or a step back toward the Idealist status quo."
The previous presidential election (2004) was extremely divisive, yet the stock market and business went up for the next three years.
"With all pre-Boomers retired, corporations lost a lot of supervisors, managers, and directors, or those in power positions."
Generations don't work like that; they're continuous, not discrete. There's no large group of people who all retire at the same time; the generation before the Baby Boomers was unusually small (http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/Pictures/Fertility1.jp...), so if anything it should be the opposite.
"When combined with Generation X, they will own 70%+ of the workforce, so their 70% take of the available income, which drives the economy, will dictate what products, brands, businesses, and industries will be viable."
The Baby Boomers do a disproportionate amount of spending in this country, and are heavily entrenched into the power structure by virtue of their large numbers; see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/2919408/B... and http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/blogs/commoncensus/2008/03/ame....