For those familiar with the "science" and tools of predicting revolutions, things are not looking good.

1> One major tool is based on the "J-curve" theory of revolutions. It stipulates that when the gap between expectations and fulfillments of those hopes gets big enough a revolution will occur. Not always a violent revolution but at least some violence is involved the majority of the time. It is called the J-curve theory because both expectations and fulfillments can be graphed on the same sheet of paper...one shown in red and the other in black. Rising expectations will show a J-shaped curve of their growth. So will fulfillments". But expectations almost always grow much faster than fulfillments.

When the gap between the two J-curve lines gets wide enough revolutions will very likely occur, even in the most repressive police states.

Russia is a perfect example. Things started to get better for most Russians after Stalin died. People who saw improvements in their lot wanted and expected more. But the upkeep of the USSR and numerous other influences damped the possibilities of that happening in a way to fulfill those expectations. So the next thing we knew, the Berlin Wall had fallen and the USSR was no more...

Also, Hence what we saw throughout Africa when the Colonial powers granted independence to almost all their colonies in the 1960s. The people of those "new" countries were led to believe that with the yoke (or millstone) of colonialism lifted from their backs, overnight they would have all the same freedoms, possessions, and life-styles of people in the USA and England. That belief was helped along because of the sudden abundance of cheap transistor radios at the same time. They listened to how people lived in better off countries of the entire world.

>2. Another fundamental in predicting revolutions is the way nations are composed and operate. One of the truisms of history is that two nations cannot occupy and rule the exact same geographical location for any extended period of time. Hence the problems between Quebec, St. Pierre (SP?), Miquelon, and the rest of Canada, and the basic division of the Netherlands into Flemish and Walloon segments.

>3. Fiscal inequities between classes. Great gaps between the assets and earnings of the well-off and the poor can also be graphed, and again, when the gap between the two J-curves gets big enough, trouble is inevitable.

>4. Not the final indicator, but another good one is the ability of factions in countries to reach working respect and compromise for and with each other. In industrial nations that has usually been expedited by the rise of a large middle class of earners. If the major political groups in a country each believe those outside their group to be stupid, evil-minded, non-believers in a "correct" government system, you get things like demonization of the left into mis-labeled "communists" and the right into mis-labeled "fascists"...with neither group feeling the other should be any part of "their" country.

If you apply all four concepts to the current condition of the United States, what would you suggest the future looks like?

(Incidentally, if you average the revolutions of this world and a time basis, you'll find the average number of years between revolutions in the average country is about 90 years. Our last one, a relatively very peaceful one was when FDR became President. That was 80 years ago....)

A painful, but simple solution: do not allow anyone to hold office, especially judges, who have not served in the US military, and received an honorable discharge. It amazes me the number of politicians who have no clue about what actually keeps this country strong in the face of constant threats to our democratic republic.

We have mortgaged our future to provide for those who choose not to work in order to provide for themselves and their families.

just sayin...

Rich

I always try to vote for the vet but most times there isn't one running in PA. Obviously universal suffrage isn't perfect and seems to be yielding weaker and weaker candidates.

I don't think the problem is our politicians as much as it is US ! We elected them, and we keep getting lousy ones because we elect lousy ones. And we keep buying (and repeating ) their bullshit that paints other Americans as the problem, the ones at fault. Republicans demonize Democrats & vice-versa. Libertarians and Greenies demonize everyone but their selves.

We are occupants of a geographical land mass seemingly determined to be led and governed by numerous internal "countries "of citizens who apparently hate each other. To survive we need to be ONE country in so far as working together toward agreed-upon ends. Two or more nations CANNOT successfully rule the same land mass at the same time.

And we keep raising the expectations of the poor and the minorities by lying to them about how everyone "deserves" every good thing on earth. We do that with our own assertions of what WE have a right to expect, with our public media, with our schools, and so on. All while we know those expectations are not feasible to meet for many years, if ever.

Here's an eye-opener for folks. Democracy is NOT the only good political system on earth. One man - one vote MAY be more BS.

Capitalism, just like Socialism, is easily taken to dysfunctional extremes. Do you really think a football player or a corporate CEO actually EARNS salaries of $36 Million a year or more? They do get paid them, but do they EARN that much? And yet they go on strike or otherwise finagle for even more!

Why do we allow the few to take home 900 times what the $40,000 a year worker who DOES earn his pay gets?

This country wasn't exactly a wreck when Dwight D. Eisenhower was President (1952-1960 IIRC), and at that time the marginal tax rate on all earnings over $100,00 per year was 98%. It didn't drive out entrepreneurs, stop drug research, mortally wound inventors, cripple pro sports teams, or cause corporations to be run by incompetents. It DID allow us to build a great infrastructure, keep our manufacturing here at home, and so on.

And why do we now pay great sums to our political candidates to attack each other at election time? Not one of them appears to have ANY specific suggestions as to what he/she would actually DO differently to improve this country. All they can do is demonize their opponents. And if someone pent millions of dollars on ads telling others what a rotten, worthless, untrustworthy demon you are, would you work well with them afterward? So, why do we expect them to actually work together to do the things we need done after they are elected?

What this country has basically lost is the ability to work together as one nation, with respect for everyone's point of view, even if we don't happen to share it.

We now see ourselves as basically perfect and those who differ with us as dangerous A--holes.

Too bad. If we can't learn to do better, WE are the dangerous A--holes and we WILL have a violent revolution in the not too distant future.

AC I could not agree more. I think the good ol USA died or became terminal in the 60s. I not only don't think it can be saved, I also don't want it to be force fixed. Let's start talking about splitting it up in a non violent manner so that like minded persons can actually build towards their own ideal future. There is no reason it couldn't follow a Swiss canton system or modified articles of confederation, which was our original constitution. Our current constitution is as similar to the original as toilet paper is to a tree.

My guess is we will limp along like the 3 legged cow we are until someone else puts us down. Too bad.

I think that is why a good world war every 50 years or so is probably a good thing. It refocuses us, and gives us a common goal, an enemy. We quit fighting each other, and start fighting a common enemy.

I like living in the United States. I have no interest in seeing us split-off into 10, 30, or 50 different selfish entities. For those that want to split the country up, I have a better idea. Don't like the US, pack your sh*t and leave. It will b a good learning experience for you. You will find that there is no other country in the world that meets all your requirements either. You'll either come crawling back scratching at the door to get in (my guess), or you'll stumble on the country of your dreams, and live happily ever after.

Our enemies throughout the world, from the day the country was born, would love to see us split-up in pieces. Personally, I wouldn't care, and would support the idea that any State that truly attempted to split away from the U.S. be ground to dust to prevent it; except Hawaii and Alaska perhaps. We could let them each become just another third-world nation living on pineapple and oil exports, and tourism; and worrying about whether Russia or China decide they might want to annex them. Give them 100 years or so, and if it works out for them, then we can talk about busting up the other 48.

CIA rule of thumb, if I remember it right: if the 18-25 age group unemployment goes above 25%, there will be civil unrest.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Navaluk:
AC I could not agree more. I think the good ol USA died or became terminal in the 60s. I not only don't think it can be saved, I also don't want it to be force fixed. Let's start talking about splitting it up in a non violent manner so that like minded persons can actually build towards their own ideal future. There is no reason it couldn't follow a Swiss canton system or modified articles of confederation, which was our original constitution.

'Fraid there IS a very good reason he canton system will not work here. That's because it will never get a chance to.

Too many vested interests addicted to feeding the fat cats ad screwing the public, or who don't know hos to exist except in this thoroughly crooked system we have now..[QUOTE]



[QUOTEOur current constitution is as similar to the original as toilet paper is to a tree.

My guess is we will limp along like the 3 legged cow we are until someone else puts us down. Too bad. Yeah, I pretty much agree with both those sentiments.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with both those thoughts. [QUOTE]

quote:

Originally posted by TomP:
CIA rule of thumb, if I remember it right: if the 18-25 age group unemployment goes above 25%, there will be civil unrest.

That's actually a cohort that has led to many theses and dissertations for aspiring sociologists, but it is the proportion of the cohort and not the economic status. The idea really received prominence in the early 90s, although it wasn't new then. It is referred to as the youth bulge.

When the 18-25 year old male cohort exceeds a certain percentage of the population (the number is debated but 25% is a common yardstick) then civil unrest generally becomes commonplace. It happens at local levels as well as regional levels.

I think I saw someone on TV discussing it as a partial cause for the Mideast violence.

My firm's vote counts based upon your percentage of ownership.

Perhaps if we weighted votes based upon taxpaying ... but that might not solve the problem given the earnings of many liberals.

However, if you took the vote from those who pay nothing, the Democrats would crash and burn.