43 comments

  • bryanlarsen 42 minutes ago

    You're a 26 year old in 1926. You're part of what history would later call the Greatest Generation. You will suffer through both the Great Depression and World War II. Perhaps due to those experiences, you will be the only generation that votes more left as you age.

    • dctoedt 39 minutes ago

      If you were born in 1900 you probably are at the tail end of the Lost Generation — the Greatest Generation is considered to be those born between 1901 and 1927.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_Generation

      • bryanlarsen 10 minutes ago

        Lost Generation describes those who experienced WW1. Given that he turned 18 in 1918 it's certainly possible he enlisted or was drafted. The article implies he didn't join WW1. It's that experience rather than his exact birthday that would categorize him into Lost vs Greatest IMO.

  • UncleOxidant 23 minutes ago

    I read Sinclair Lewis' Babbit last year and it was kind of depressing how little had changed since 1922. The political climate (at least as portrayed in the novel) seemed eerily similar to now. Maybe we continually go through oscillations.

    • abirch 13 minutes ago

      I'm shocked how much the average American knows about how things work. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. I'm not surprised how quickly Americans are giving up their liberty.

      • dgellow 3 minutes ago

        Did you mean to say “how little”?

  • davoneus 38 minutes ago

    Great article. Just reminds me of how much societies resemble a pendulum; swinging from one extreme to the other. And of course you have the problem that some people want to freeze it mid-swing, or worse tear the damn thing down completely.

    • piva00 5 minutes ago

      I discovered the pendulum of social movements after reading Bertrand Russell's "The Ancestry of Fascism" at a relative young age (~16 years old), it only really made sense after my 30s though.

      It required me watching, experiencing how things I had considered settled and humanity was over them started to turn back: the rise of fascistic tendencies in different societies, anti-intellectualism, etc. things that as a teenager/young adult I never considered could become societal issues again.

  • pfdietz an hour ago

    So, we're about to have Great Depression 2 and WW3? Fun.

    • Avicebron an hour ago

      Sometimes I wish Strauss–Howe theory hadn't been hijacked. It seems noteworthy how similar (cyclical?) things are even if it's a coincidence..

      • edoceo an hour ago

        A key feature of the human condition is thinking "this time will be different"

      • copper-float 25 minutes ago

        What do you mean hijacked? I'm not familiar with that theory.

    • stackghost 40 minutes ago

      It has felt inevitable to me for a few years now. The market != the economy but a major crash can still trigger a credit crunch that will materially affect regular people. Look at the insane valuations on some of these companies. They can't continue forever.

      As for WW3, well, there's a diaper-wearing senile old man, with an inferiority complex to boot, in charge of a nuclear arsenal and major conventional forces.

      • UncleOxidant 11 minutes ago

        I think there's a compelling case to be made that WW3 started in 2014 when Putin invaded Crimea.

        • bryanlarsen 8 minutes ago

          If so, we haven't hit the equivalent of Sept 1 1939 yet. That's when WW2 is generally considered to have started, but residents of Manchuria, Austria and the Sudetenland probably consider it to have started earlier.

        • esseph 6 minutes ago

          [delayed]

      • esseph 9 minutes ago

        [delayed]

      • miroljub 28 minutes ago

        > As for WW3, well, there's a diaper-wearing senile old man, with an inferiority complex to boot, in charge of a nuclear arsenal and major conventional forces.

        How naive one must be to consider this NPC as the biggest threat to human kind since the dawn of man.

        It's not that single person who threatens the world, it's the complete American elite and the whole American society who push for wars and more wars, and the current NPC of the day in the office is just their tool.

        • pfdietz 13 minutes ago

          It sometimes is a single person. Consider the failed beer hall demagogue who wrecked a nation, a continent, and nearly a world.

          • UncleOxidant 7 minutes ago

            To both of your points: the beer hall demagogue wouldn't have gotten to Chancellor if the German elites hadn't decided that he really couldn't do that much damage and we may as well let him be chancellor to quiet down his followers. Even after the putch, he got a very light sentence because the judge was sympathetic with his right-wing cause. You're both right to some extent. A huge amount of damage was done by one man, but he got to where he did because the German elites thought that he might be useful to their cause.

            • pfdietz 4 minutes ago

              All events have multiple causes. But history turned on what he did, and would have been very different otherwise.

    • UncleOxidant 43 minutes ago

      We're kind of already having the WW3 part.

      • wqaatwt 10 minutes ago

        More like Cold War 2

      • pfdietz 14 minutes ago

        Not even close, unfortunately. WW3 would be massively worse than what we have now.

  • fierycatnet an hour ago

    Still reading the article but it reminds me that I need to watch Metropolis now, I think it came out in 1928 or so.

  • ck2 40 minutes ago

    yeah but America 1926 didn't have a billion dollars a day being extracted from the economy by a totally useless war (that is going to start again in 60 days)

    or a President extracting billions from his own government for a plane, golf, inexplicable illegal destruction and renovations to national sites

    the government was also not purposely imploding academia, science and medicine

    there are also now over a THOUSAND billionaires "silo-ing" their wealth, barely paying any taxes and trying to eliminate the cost of employing anybody

    we cannot recover this decade, maybe not even next century, and that assumes this horror show doesn't have a "part 2"

    • Schiendelman 37 minutes ago

      You might be surprised to hear that wealth concentration was worse a hundred years ago than it is now. It's very easy to assume otherwise when the numbers are so much larger now across the board.

      https://americanbusinesshistory.org/superwealth-a-historical...

      • ck2 28 minutes ago

        yes almost all americans now have running water and indoor toilets

        except we have more homeless than ever so they don't even have that

        with taxes slashed for billionaires and safety-nets for food and healthcare being destroyed, we are actually headed back to 1926 on purpose

        • WillAdams 18 minutes ago

          The definition of homeless was quite different at that time --- note that there was an entire class of people defined as hobos/migrant workers who began the year helping out with cutting lumber and harvesting maple sugar in the winter, then working south to help with the planting of truck crops (lettuce, spinach, broccoli, peas...) in the spring, pruning fruit trees and harvesting early crops in the summer, then in the fall helping with the harvests and picking cotton and so forth, then helping to plant cover crops and so forth and moving north to repeat the process.

          Louis L'Amour writes on this a bit in his wonderful book:

          https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/828165.Education_of_a...

          • andy99 5 minutes ago

            The people that are homeless now would have been institutionalized or dead back then.

        • copper-float 24 minutes ago

          Feels like a bit of a dramatization.

  • jmyeet 34 minutes ago

    I an a completely unabashed leftist who has been "radicalized" (if you call free school lunches "radical", which apparently it is in modern America) by seeing the rapidly accelerating wealth and income inequality since 2008. I mean it really kciked off in the 1970s but the effects post-2008 became impossible to ignore.

    In the spirit of all models are wroong but some models are useful and that generational politics is overly reductive (which it is), I still see the Millenials as the new Lost Generation. The original Lost Generation were born 1883 to 1900. They came of age in the devastation of WW1 and the Spanish flu. What happened after 2008 was that all the entry-level jobs disappeared. Millenials had taken and continued to take on massive student debt and otherwise "do the right thing" yet found there were limited opportunities at the end of that pipeline. Baby boomers still had a stranglehold on academic and they both refused to quit or die (something which is still true). This is where the trope of the college educated millenial barista came from.

    Obama's presidency was a massive lost opportunity to correct some of this. It directly led to Trump being elected (over Hilary "more of the same" Clinton). Trump, for all his many, many faults, talked to the rising anger in young people at the lack of opportunity, the possibility that they'd never own a house or have a good-paying job or they'd have a family. The disillusionment and anger has only grown.

    So, as a leftist, the irony is that I get shit on constantly for essentially trying to preserve the current system by those people who like the current system but are contributing towards us bouldering towards war and revolution. Because those are the ultimate form of wealth redistribution [1] and become increasingly inevitable as material conditions worsen.

    Even more ironic, many of those same people fetishize the 1950s where the top marginal tax rate was 91%, the CEO-to-median-wage ratio was a fraction of what it is now and the corporate tax rate was 40-50%. But then came along the likes of McKinsey who justified greed witht he patina of executives being "underpaid" [2] and then the social destruction of Nixon, Reagan and Clinton.

    It took FDR in the 1930s to repair the damage of 1920s pro-business slavishness of Coolidge and Mellon. And let's not forget there was an attempted coup in 1933 [3]. But you see the same messages (as the author notes) in the 1920s of lower taxes, destroying unions and being pro-big business. Sound familiar?

    [1]: https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2017/01/stanford-historian...

    [2]: https://observer.com/2013/08/the-godfather-of-ceo-megapay-mc...

    [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

    • sanguinesphinx 29 minutes ago

      > talked to the rising anger in young people at the lack of opportunity, the possibility that they'd never own a house or have a good-paying job or they'd have a family. The disillusionment and anger has only grown.

      This should be the absolutely only thing that Democrats talk about. Every single day, with a big graph and call in number, so people can call in to say if this was fixed for them or not. And if it's not fixed, they should outline steps on how it gets fixed that day. It's insane they aren't using this opportunity.

      • kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 22 minutes ago

        > It's insane they aren't using this opportunity.

        Instead they're taking the opportunity to be insane. But the faithful are not allowed to admit that.

  • axpy906 37 minutes ago

    No offense but outside of money does the US have anything going for it?

    • artisinal 34 minutes ago

      Natural parks.

      Tasty drinkable water from the tap in nearly the entire country. Being able to flush toilet paper. Free toilets almost everywhere.

      Being a country for 250 years is also quite an achievement.

      I’m European and have witnessed many wars on my continent in my lifetime. A childhood friend was shot down with a Russian surface to air missile.

      • 2muchtime 29 minutes ago

        The water is drinkable but in many places not what I would call tasty.

        • artisinal 4 minutes ago

          Water tastes pretty gross in coastal Spain. In countries like Albania I wouldn’t even drink it at all. On Greek islands it is safe but everyone buys water from the stores.

          Due to the age of many places in Europe there is also still a lot of copper pipe used for tap water. Not deadly but also not very healthy. In Amsterdam over 20 percent of homes have copper pipes.

    • jandrewrogers 28 minutes ago

      The best geography of any country by a large margin and a non-ethnic culture that believes anything is possible and celebrates the ambition to try.

      The money is largely a side effect of these two things.

      • wqaatwt 4 minutes ago

        Europe probably has the “best geography” and the climate, though?

        Coastal California is probably one of the nicest places on earth but generally US is quite harsh.

    • fluidcruft 22 minutes ago

      The Mississippi river. Few understand what an advantage that river is.

    • AnimalMuppet 18 minutes ago

      Freedom to say (almost) anything, publicly, including criticism of the elite and powerful.

      Freedom to do, to create a business with far fewer roadblocks than in, say, Europe.

      Freedom to go, to travel anywhere in a really large country, with no borders or restrictions.

      Yeah, you can quote me all the caveats. They're there; I don't deny them. But: Freedom to say, freedom to do, and freedom to go. Those are really big deals.

    • kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 25 minutes ago

      Ask those returning home from world cup visits. They'll be in the best position to compare to their home country.